Page 175 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

2020 ] IN RE : DILEEP POTTERIES PVT. LTD. 261
7. I further observe that consequent upon implementation of GST with
effect from 1-7-2017, Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback
Rules, 1995 were also continued for a transition period of three months i.e. from
July, 2017 to September, 2017 vide [Circular] No. 22/2017-Cus., dated
30-6-2017.
According to notes & conditions No. 7 to Notification No. 131/2016-
Cus., dated 31-10-2016, “if the rate indicated is the same in the columns (4) and
(6), it shall mean that the same pertains to only Customs component and is avail-
able irrespective of whether the exporter has availed of Cenvat Facility or not”. I
also find that the appellant’s commodity are classifiable under Tariff Item No.
6914 “Other Ceramic Articles”, (Invoice No. 17/25, dated 29-7-2017) under Noti-
fication No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 which attracts the same
rates of drawback i.e. 1.5% under both the columns (4) & (6). Hence, it is evident
that the appellant has claimed drawback of Customs component only for their
export.
Further, as per Circular No. 22/2017-Cus., dated 30-6-2017, which deals
with drawback claims for the transition period, clearly provides that “While a
transition period of three months has been allowed, the exporters shall have an
option to claim only Customs portion of AIRs of duty drawback i.e. rates and
caps given under column (6) & (7) respectively of the Schedule of AIRs of duty
drawback and avail input tax credit of CGST or IGST or refund of IGST paid on
exports”. Furthermore, C.B.E. & C. vide Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST in F. No.
349/47/2017-GST, dated 15-3-2018 has also clarified that a supplier availing
drawback only with respect to basic customs duty shall be eligible for refund of
unutilized input tax credit of Central tax/State tax/Union territory
tax/Integrated tax/Compensation Cess under the said provision.
8. The appellant has also submitted the copies of invoices of ITC of
IGST which were not submitted at the time of personal hearing held before the
adjudicating authority resulting to rejection of refund claim. The appellant is di-
rected to submit all such invoices before the adjudicating authority for verifica-
tion.
9. In view of above clarification and discussion & findings, I allow the
appeal filed by the appellant only to the extent of rejection of refund of IGST
amounting to Rs. 2245/- and CGST amounting to Rs. 1,10,755/- subject to verifi-
cation by the adjudicating authority.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off in above manner.
_______

2020 (37) G.S.T.L. 261 (Commr. Appl. - GST - Raj.)
BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF GST (APPEALS), JAIPUR
Shri J.P. Meena, Additional Commissioner (Appeals)
IN RE : DILEEP POTTERIES PVT. LTD.

Order-in-Appeal Nos. 05-07 (JPM)CGST/JPR/2020, dated 2-1-2020
in Application C. Nos. APPL/JP/17-19/IX/18
Refund of unutilized credit - Transition to GST - Consequent upon
implementation of GST with effect from 1-7-2017, Customs, Central Excise Du-
GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  175