Page 140 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

354 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
posited the same. Further, the MRP of boxes were marked as Rs. 600/- whereas,
the value shown in the Invoice was only Rs. 170/- which indicates the huge dif-
ference between MRP and Invoice value and clearly reflect the extent of under-
valuation of the goods. They have not submitted anything concrete to support
their contention. Therefore, appellant’s above contention is not acceptable.
7. In view of the above discussion and findings I hereby reject the ap-
peal filed by the appellant.

_______

2020 (37) G.S.T.L. 354 (Commr. Appl. - GST - Guj.)

BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF GST (APPEALS), AHMEDABAD
Shri Uma Shanker, Commissioner (Appeals)
IN RE : UMBERTO CERAMICS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
Order-in-Appeal No. AHM-EXCUS-003-APP-01-19-20, dated 25-4-2019
Refund of unutilised Cenvat/ITC - Refund claim although filed under
Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 but filed after the appointed day - Refund
claim to be decided under provisions of Central Excise law read with Cenvat
Credit Rules, 2004 and not under GST law more particularly when transitional
provisions, i.e., Section 142(3) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
makes it mandatory on the authority to dispose such claim in accordance with
the provisions of existing law - Rule 117 of Central Goods and Services Tax
Rules, 2017 applied in processing/deciding the claim by the impugned authori-
ty is faulty - Matter remanded to adjudicating authority to scrutinize the claim
in accordance with the provisions of Central Excise law read with Cenvat
Credit Rules, 2004. [paras 6.1, 6.2, 7]
Matter remanded
[Order]. - M/s. Umberto Ceramics International Private Limited, Sado-
lia, Prantij (henceforth, “appellant”) has filed the present appeal against the
Order-in-Original No. 11/Ref/CGST/AC/HMT/2018-19, dated 12-12-2018
(henceforth, “impugned order”) issued by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST,
Division-Himatnagar, Gandhinagar (henceforth, -, “adjudicating authority”).
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant, a manufacturer
of tableware, kitchenware etc filed refund claim of Rs. 26,80,547/- on 28-6-2018
under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the quarter of April to June, 2017 in
respect of Cenvat credit availed on various inputs as majority of their final prod-
ucts were exported. Said claim was rejected under impugned order holding that
the claimant had not filed mandatory declaration electronically in the Form GST
TRAN-1 as stipulated under Rule 117 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules,
2017.
3. Being aggrieved with the impugned order the appellant preferred
this appeal contesting inter alia, that ground for rejection of refund is erroneous
and absurd; that they were not required to carry forward the credit for which
they filed refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; that under proviso
to Rule 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 there is specific restriction as regard carry for-
ward of amount in TRAN-1 for which refund is being filed under erstwhile pro-
GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  140