Page 179 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

2020 ] IN RE : DILEEP POTTERIES PVT. LTD. 265
4. Personal hearing in the matter was held on 3-12-2018 Shri Mudit
Jain, Chartered Accountant and Authorized Representative appeared for person-
al hearing. He explained the case in detail and reiterated the grounds of appeal
and requested to decide the case accordingly on merits.
5. 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 in all the three appeals filed by the appellant, the main issue involved is
that the adjudicating authority has rejected the drawback claims for the transi-
tion period of three months i.e. from July, 2017 to September, 2017 on account of
that the appellant has claimed higher rate of draw back under column A of
drawbacks.
6. 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 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”, 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 exports shall have an
option to claim only Customs portion of AlRs 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, 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 custom 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.
7. Further, vide Para 40 of Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST issued under
C. No. CBEC-20/16/04/18-GST, dated 18-11-2019 it is clarified that as per the
third proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 54 of the CGST Act states that no re-
fund of input tax credit shall be allowed in cases where the supplier of goods or
services or both avails of drawback in respect of Central tax. It is clarified that if a
supplier avails of drawback in respect of duties rebated under the Customs and
Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 he shall be eligible for refund of un-
utilized input tax credit of Central tax/State tax/Union Territory tax/Integrated
tax/Compensation Cess. It is also clarified that refund of eligible credit on ac-
count of State tax shall be available if the supplier of goods or services or both
has availed of drawback in respect of Central tax.
8. In view of above clarification and discussion & findings above. I al-
low the appeals filed by the appellant only to the extent of rejection of refund of
IGST and CGST on account of higher drawback under column A of drawback
schedule.

GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  179