Page 133 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

2020 ] IN RE : SIGMA ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING CORPORATION P. LTD. 347
2 CGST/JP/ JPR/DIV-A/FINAL/ The refund of Rs. 1,96,12,753/- was
28/X/18 140, dated 6-8-2018 filed manually in respect of unutilized
ITC accumulated during August, 2017
on account of export of goods & ser-
vices without payment of Integrated
tax which was rejected.
3 CGST/JP/ JPR/DIV-A/FINAL/ The refund of Rs. 69,73,950/- was filed
36/XI/18 255, dated 26-10-2018 manually in respect of unutilized ITC
accumulated during Sept., 2017 on
account of export of goods & services
without payment of Integrated tax
which was rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case :
2.1 The appellant having GSTIN No. 08AADCS9493H1ZS is a 100%
Export Oriented Unit (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant) are engaged in
manufacture and export of metal casting and injection molded products and ac-
cessories has filed applications for refund claim in respect of unutilized ITC ac-
cumulated on account of export of goods & services without payment of Inte-
grated Tax under Section 16(3)(a) of the Integrated Goods & Services Tax Act,
2017 (hereinafter referred to it as the IGST Act, 2017) read with Rule 96A of the
CGST Rules, 2017 under the cover of Letter of Undertaking (hereinafter referred
to as LUT) for the month of July, 2017, August, 2017 and September, 2017. The
refund claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority on the grounds that the
appellant did not supply the information fall under sub-rule (4A) or sub-rule (4B)
of the CGST Rules, 2017 and in the refund claim nowhere mentioned that any
supply under Rule 89(4A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 or otherwise. As per Rule
89(4A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 as amended, the information in respect of Notifi-
cation No. 48/2017-Central Tax, dated the 18th October, 2017 and Rule 89(4B) of
the CGST Rules, 2017 as amended; information in respect of Notification No.
40/2017, 41/2017, dated 23rd October, 2017, 78/2017 & 79/2017-Central Tax
(Rate), 13th October, 2017 has not been received/provided by the appellant and
not followed the provisions of the Circular No. 17/17/2017-GST, dated 15-11-
2017. The appellant has also not followed the procedure as prescribed under Sec-
tion 87 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 41 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
3. Being aggrieved with the impugned orders mentioned in column
No. 3 of above Table in Para-1, the appellant has filed these appeals on the
ground that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the adjudicating authority
is wrong, unjust and erred in law in and without consideration of facts rejecting
claim of refund. That the reason mentioned for rejecting claim of refund is either
irrelevant to verify the claim of refund or technical in nature. The facts has duly
explained but the order of reject of refund was without consideration of infor-
mation and explanations submitted by the company. The adjudicating authority
has acted in an arbitrary manner and has shown a complete disregard for the
provisions of the Act, 2017 and the Rules, 2017 issued thereunder.
4. Personal Hearing in all these matters were held on 13-12-2018 and
6-3-2019 wherein Sh. Mukesh Sharma, Senior Manager and Sh. Pratik Shah,
CWA & Authorized Representative of the appellant appeared. They explained
the case in details and reiterated the submissions made in their appeal memo-
GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  133