Page 20 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

xviii GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
Refund/Refund Claim (Contd.)
— of unutilized credit - Transition to GST - Consequent upon
implementation of GST with effect from 1-7-2017, Customs, Central
Excise Duties 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 Notification 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
Customs 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 Services Tax Act, 2017 — In Re : Dileep
Potteries Pvt. Ltd. (Commr. Appl. - GST - Raj.) ....................... 261
— of unutilized credit - Transition to GST - Transition period of three
months allowed where exporters can claim only Customs portion of AIRs
of duty drawback, i.e., rates and caps given under columns (6) and (7)
respectively of the Schedule of All India Rates of duty drawback and
avail input tax credit of CGST or IGST or refund of IGST paid on exports
vide C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 22/2017-Cus., dated 30-6-2017 - Appellant’s
commodity being classifiable under Tariff Item No. 6914 “Other Ceramic
Articles” attracts the same rates of drawback, i.e., 1.5% under both the
columns (4) & (6), it is evident that appellant has claimed drawback of
Customs component only for their export as per condition 7 of
Notification No. 131/2016-Cus. (N.T.) - Refund of IGST amounting to `
2245 and CGST amounting to ` 1,10,755 allowed subject to verification of
invoices by adjudicating authority — In Re : Dileep Trading Corporation (Commr.
Appl. - GST - Raj.) .................................... 257
— Unjust Enrichment - Undisputedly, appellant has paid Service Tax in
excess which they were not supposed to pay - Also undisputedly, they
have collected said amount of tax from their customers - Thus they are
not entitled for refund as burden of tax has already been passed on -
Their plea that said amount be allowed to be adjusted against their
customer’s tax liability not acceptable, as such amount while can be
transferred to Consumer Welfare fund, there is no provision for adjusting
same against liability of Customer - Section 11B of Central Excise Act,
1944 as applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 —
Conwood Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai East (Tri. - Mumbai) ...... 224
Registration - Assessee providing Construction of Residential Complex
service along with materials which is classifiable under Works Contract
service, not required to be registered under category of Construction of
Residential Complex service - Section 69 of Finance Act, 1994 — Commr. of
C. Ex. & S.T., Panchkula v. Amarnath Aggarwal Investment Pvt. Ltd. (Tri. - Chan.) ....... 230
Reimbursable expenses excludible from valuation for payment of Service
Tax - See under VALUATION (SERVICE TAX) ................. 227
Relevant date of limitation for refund when amount deposited through
challan not utilized for duty payment - See under REFUND/REFUND
CLAIM ........................................ 185
GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  20