Page 174 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

260 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
1 4.4 From the combined reading of the above paras, it is ample clear
that when the rates of drawback are same i.e. in this case 1.5%, then the rate per-
tains to customs component only and not towards the Central Excise and Service
Tax component. That a copy of the drawback rate prescribed in the aforesaid no-
tification is reproduced below :

6910 Ceramic sinks, wash basins, wash basin pedes- 1.5% 1.5%
tals, baths, bidets, water closet pans, flushing
cisterns, urinals and similar sanitary fixtures
6911 Tableware, kitchenware, other household arti- 1.5% 1.5%
cles and toilet articles, of porcelain or china
6912 Ceramic tableware, kitchenware, other house- 1.5% 1.5%
hold articles and toilet articles, other than of
porcelain or china
6913 Statuettes and other ornamental ceramic arti- 1.5% 1.5%
cles
6914 Other ceramic articles 1.5% 1.5%

4.5 That from the above, it is amply clear that the appellant has claimed
drawback of custom component only in relation to Invoice No. 17/021 and
17/025 and has rightly availed ITC in respect of the good exported under the
above invoices and therefore the refund is admissible and cannot be rejected on
account of incorrect allegation of claiming higher rate of drawback.
4.6 That in relation to Invoice No. 17/024, the appellant admits to have
claimed the drawback at the higher rate and therefore the refund on the same
appeared to be inadmissible.
4.7 However, the refund of CGST Rs. 20,865/- allowed by the adjudi-
cating authority is erroneous and based on incorrect interpretation and incom-
plete application of mind. That taking into consideration the goods exported un-
der lower rate of drawback, the appellant was admissible for refund of
Rs. 1,31.620/-. Calculation sheet is also enclosed. Therefore, the adjudicating au-
thority seems to have fallaciously rejected refund of CGST to the tune of
Rs. 1,10,755/-.
4.8 That in relation to the allegation regarding non-submission of the
invoices pertaining to the ITC of IGST amounting to Rs. 11,680/- the same had
already been submitted to the adjudicating authority but the same have not been
considered. The copy of the invoices again submitted.
5. Personal hearing in the matter was held on 11-12-2018 Shri Chirag
Jain, Chartered Accountant and Authorized Representative on behalf of the ap-
pellant appeared for personal hearing. He explained the case in detail and reiter-
ated the submission made in the grounds of appeal and requested to decide the
case on merits as per facts available on records.
6. I have carefully gone through the case records, appeal memos and
oral submissions of the appellant made during the course of personal hearing. I
find that the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that the adjudicating
authority has rejected the drawback claims for the transition period of one month
i.e. July, 2017 on account of that the appellant has claimed DBK in Group ‘A’ and
not submitted the invoices relating to ITC of IGST and SGST.

________________________________________________________________________
1 Paragraph number as per official text.
GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  174