Page 176 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

262 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
ties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 continued for a transition period of
three months, i.e., from July, 2017 to September, 2017 vide C.B.E. & C. Circular
No. 22/20I7-Cus., dated 30-6-2017 - As per Notes and Condition No. 7 to Notifi-
cation No. 131/2016-Cus. (N.T.), dated 31-10-2016, “if the rate of drawback in
columns 4 & 6 is same, then the same pertains to only Customs component and
available irrespective of whether the exporter avails the Cenvat facility or not -
Appellant’s commodity being classifiable under Tariff Item No. 6914 “Other
Ceramic Articles”, which attracts the same rate of drawback, i.e., 1.5% under
both the columns (4) & (6), evidently appellant has claimed drawback of Cus-
toms component only for their export - Consequently appellant eligible for
refund of unutilized input tax credit of Central Tax/State Tax/Union Territory
Tax/Integrated Tax/Compensation Cess vide para 40 of C.B.I. & C. Circular No.
125/44/2019-GST, dated 18-11-2019 - Section 54(3) of Central Goods and Ser-
vices Tax Act, 2017. [paras 6, 7]
Appeals partly allowed

DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATIONS CITED
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 22/2017-Cus., dated 30-6-2017 ............................................................... [Paras 3, 6]
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST, dated 15-3-2018 .............................................................. [Para 6]
C.B.I. & C. Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST, dated 18-11-2019 ........................................................... [Para 7]
[Order]. - These 3 appeals have been filed under Section 107 of the CGST
Act, 2017 (hereinafter also referred to as “the Act”) by M/s. Dileep Potteries Pri-
vate Limited, Village Chirota. Post - Ajayrajpura, Via. Bagru, Jaipur, Rajasthan-
303007 against the below mentioned Refund Sanction/Rejection orders (hereinaf-
ter referred to as “the impugned orders”) filed under Section 54 of the CGST Act,
2017 read with Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 passed by the Deputy Commis-
sioner. CGST Division-F, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the adjudicating au-
thority”) as per the below mentioned details. As the issue is same and of identical
nature. I take up all the appeals simultaneously :

S. F. N. Order No. Show Cause Notice Period of Appealed
N. C. No. and date dispute Amount Rs.
1 2 3 4 5 7
1 APPL/JP/ CGST Div F/ V(GST DIV-F)RFD- July, 2017 1,65,509/-
17/IX/18 66/2018/ 66/DPPL/2158, (IGST 47,867/- &
2652, dated dated 16-4-2018 CGST 1,17,642/-)
11-6-2018
2 APPL/JP/ CGST Div- V(GST DIV-F) RFD- August, 1,98,055/-
18/IX/18 F/67/2018/ 67/DPPL/2159, 2017 (IGST 80,062/- &
4606, dated dated 16-4-2018 CGST 1,17,993/-)
11-6-2018
3 APPL/JP/ CGST Div- V(GST DIV-F) RFD- Sept., 1,76,440/-
19/IX/18 F/68/2018/ 68/DPPL/18/4013, 2017 (1GST 80,536/-,
4720, dated dated 11-5-2018 CGST 89,708/- &
11-6-2018 SGST 6196/-)

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is registered under GST
having GSTIN : 08AAECD5106B1Z8 and engaged into the business of manufac-
turing and trading of ceramic handicraft items. That the appellant had applied

GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  176