Refund of unutilised input tax credit - drawback pertaining to customs component where DBK rates in columns (4) and (6) are identical - transition period applicability of duty drawback and option to claim only customs portion - proviso in Section 54(3) regarding supplier availing drawback and bar on refund of ITC - verification of invoices for establishing entitlement to ITC/refundDrawback pertaining to customs component where DBK rates in columns (4) and (6) are identical - transition period applicability of duty drawback and option to claim only customs portion - refund of unutilised input tax credit - Refund claim could not be rejected merely because drawback in invoices appeared under Group A where the notified drawback rate under the Schedule was identical in columns (4) and (6); such rates pertain only to the customs component and do not preclude claim of unutilised input tax credit or refund. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority's rejection of refund on the ground that the appellant had claimed drawback under Group A was examined in the light of Notification No. 131/2016-Cus. (N.T.) and Circular No. 22/2017-Cus., which governed the transition period. Note (7) to the Notification states that where the figures in columns (4) and (6) are the same, the rate pertains only to the customs component and is available irrespective of availing Cenvat. Circular No. 22/2017-Cus. allowed exporters, during the transition period, the option to claim only the customs portion of AIRs of drawback and to avail input tax credit or refund of IGST. Applying these principles, the tribunal found that the appellant's goods under the relevant tariff (chapter 6914) attracted identical rates (1.5%) in both columns and therefore the drawback claimed was of the customs component only; consequently the appellant's entitlement to refund of unutilised input tax credit could not be denied on the basis alleged by the adjudicating authority. [Paras 7]Adjudicating authority's rejection on the basis of claiming DBK in Group A was unsustainable for invoices where the Schedule shows identical rates in columns (4) and (6); refund on those invoices is admissible.Verification of invoices for establishing entitlement to ITC/refund - refund of unutilised input tax credit - Allowance of the appellant's refund claim in part was directed to be subject to verification by the adjudicating authority of the invoices and related documents establishing entitlement to ITC/refund. - HELD THAT: - The appellant submitted that invoices supporting the ITC of IGST/SGST had been filed but were not considered by the adjudicating authority. The appellate authority noted that the appellant had produced copies of the invoices and directed that all such invoices be submitted to the adjudicating authority for verification. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed to the extent of the contested CGST and IGST amounts, but the actual grant was made subject to verification and confirmation by the adjudicating authority of the documentary proof and correctness of claimed ITC/refund. [Paras 8, 9]Appeal allowed in part; refund of specified CGST and IGST amounts is permitted only after verification of the invoices and related documents by the adjudicating authority.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed in part: the rejection of refund was set aside insofar as invoices attracting identical drawback rates in the Schedule (thereby indicating customs-component drawback only) and the appellant's corresponding entitlement to refund of unutilised input tax credit is recognised; the allowance of CGST and IGST refunds is subject to verification of the invoices and documents by the adjudicating authority, after which appropriate refund may be sanctioned.

Reasonable opportunity to be heard / show cause notice - determination of value / undervaluation of goods - acceptance by conduct / estoppel by deposit of tax, penalty and redemption fine - absence of supporting evidence for alleged promotional schemeReasonable opportunity to be heard / show cause notice - Whether the appellant was denied reasonable opportunity or not served with a show cause notice. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority's proceedings were acknowledged by the appellant and the person in charge of the conveyance at the time of detention and inspection, and they had informed the authority that they did not require a personal hearing or notice. The appellate forum found on review of the record that the appellant had not objected to the proceedings at the relevant time and therefore the contention of denial of reasonable opportunity and non-issuance of a show cause notice is not tenable. The appellate authority thus sustained the procedural regularity of the impugned order. [Paras 6]The contention of denial of reasonable opportunity and non-issuance of a show cause notice is rejected.Absence of supporting evidence for alleged promotional scheme - Whether the appellant's claim of a buy-one-get-one/free promotional scheme could excuse the alleged excess quantity and valuation discrepancies. - HELD THAT: - The appellant's claim of a free scheme was unsupported by any documentary evidence. The tax invoice, e-way bill and challan recorded the quantity as 685 boxes and made no mention of any free boxes or promotional scheme. The appellate authority treated the promotional claim as an afterthought in absence of contemporaneous supporting documents and therefore rejected it. [Paras 6]The claim of a promotional free-scheme is not accepted for want of supporting evidence.Determination of value / undervaluation of goods - acceptance by conduct / estoppel by deposit of tax, penalty and redemption fine - Whether the adjudicating authority's determination of undervaluation and the consequent demand, confiscation and penalties were correct. - HELD THAT: - Physical verification disclosed a large disparity between the MRP marked on boxes and the invoice value, indicating undervaluation. The appellant did not challenge the value at the time the goods and vehicle were released; instead they requested release after depositing the tax, penalty and redemption fine as determined by the adjudicating authority. The appellate forum treated the appellant's failure to object to the valuation at release, and their deposit of the sums demanded, as acceptance of the valuation determined by the adjudicating authority and refused to entertain belated objections. In view of the undisputed discrepancy in MRP and invoice value and the appellant's conduct, the impugned determinations were upheld. [Paras 6]The adjudicating authority's valuation and consequent measures are sustained; the appellant's challenge to valuation is rejected.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed and the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority is upheld.

Refund of compensation cess - Exemption for old and used motor vehicles - Benefit of notification and date of supply - Onus of proof for entitlement to refund - Refund under Section 54Refund of compensation cess - Exemption for old and used motor vehicles - Onus of proof for entitlement to refund - Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of compensation cess paid on the sale of a motor vehicle on the ground that the vehicle was old and used - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim because the appellant did not furnish any evidence to show that the vehicle was old and used. The invoice described the transaction merely as 'Advance Towards the Sale of Car' and omitted particulars such as registration number, engine number or year of manufacture from which the character of the vehicle (old/used) could be inferred. The appellate authority concurs that the benefit of the exemption for old and used motor vehicles under the relevant notification can be availed only when there is satisfactory evidence to prove the vehicle's old/used status; in the absence of such evidence the appellant cannot claim the refund of compensation cess. [Paras 6]Refund claim on the ground that the vehicle was old and used is rejected for want of evidence establishing that status.Benefit of notification and date of supply - Refund under Section 54 - Whether the appellant could claim refund of compensation cess on the basis that no cess was payable on advances in view of the notification cited by the appellant - HELD THAT: - The appellant relied on a notification to contend that cess was not payable on advances. The authority examined the documents and found no clear record of the date on which the supply of the car was effected; consequently it is not possible to determine whether tax liability crystallised before or after the notification's effective date. Since the benefit of the notification depends on the timing of supply and the appellant failed to establish the date of supply, the appellate authority held that the benefit of the notification could not be extended to the appellant. The absence of a clear supply date therefore defeats the refund claim under Section 54. [Paras 7]Claim for refund based on inapplicability of cess to advances is not allowable because the date of supply is not shown, and therefore the benefit of the notification cannot be granted.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed; the refund claim of compensation cess is rejected for want of evidence that the vehicle was old and used and for failure to establish the date of supply necessary to attract the benefit of the notification.

E-way bill requirement for goods in transit - detention and release of goods and conveyance under Section 129 - inspection of goods in transit under Section 68(3) - penal liability for movement without invoice/e-way bill - condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 107(4)Condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 107(4) - Whether the one-day delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. - HELD THAT: - The appellant filed the appeal one day beyond the prescribed period and sought condonation on the ground of a pre-scheduled hearing before CESTAT in New Delhi. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted this explanation as a genuine cause for delay and exercised the power under the relevant provision to condone the delay. The acceptance was recorded at the personal hearing when the condonation application was presented and explained by the appellant's authorised representative. [Paras 5]Delay in filing the appeal condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication.E-way bill requirement for goods in transit - inspection of goods in transit under Section 68(3) - detention and release of goods and conveyance under Section 129 - penal liability for movement without invoice/e-way bill - Whether the penalty imposed under the detention provisions was valid because the vehicle was intercepted before generation of the e-way bill. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority's record showed interception of the vehicle prior to generation of the e-way bill. The appellant's contrary assertion about a later interception time was unsupported by evidence. The e-way bill was generated after the time of interception recorded by the officers. As the vehicle was not accompanied by the documents required by law (invoice, e-way bill) at the time of inspection, the statutory penal provisions for movement without prescribed documents were correctly invoked. The Commissioner (Appeals) examined the records and the appellant's submissions and found no evidence to rebut the recorded timing or to vitiate the finding of non-possession of required documents; consequently the imposition of penalty was upheld. [Paras 7, 8]Penalty imposed for movement of goods without required documents upheld; appeal on merits rejected.Final Conclusion: The Commissioner (Appeals) condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeal and, on merits, upheld the detention-based penalty because the vehicle was intercepted without the prescribed invoice/e-way bill and the e-way bill was generated only after interception; the appeal was therefore dismissed.

Detention and confiscation under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Reliance on physical verification and FORM MOV-04 - Assessment of excess goods on basis of physical verification - Trade practice of cutting irregular slabs not a defence to declared shortfall - Proof and production of measurement slipsReliance on physical verification and FORM MOV-04 - Assessment of excess goods on basis of physical verification - Physical verification findings recorded in FORM MOV-04 showing excess quantity were valid and could be relied upon to compute value of undisclosed goods. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority's physical verification disclosed substantial discrepancies between quantities in the invoices and quantities found on inspection. The record shows that FORM MOV-04, the prescribed physical verification report, was completed in the presence of the appellant and the person in-charge of the vehicle, and bears their signatures. The authority compared invoice quantities with the quantities found on verification and found abnormal and large differences that could not be explained by the appellant's contention about cutting irregular slabs. The Tribunal therefore accepted the physical verification results as the basis for determining the quantity and value of goods found in excess. [Paras 7, 8]Physical verification documented in FORM MOV-04 is reliable and supports the finding of excess goods.Trade practice of cutting irregular slabs not a defence to declared shortfall - Proof and production of measurement slips - The appellant's plea that trade practice of cutting irregular slabs and claimed absence of measurement slips justified the discrepancies was rejected. - HELD THAT: - The appellant argued that irregular-sized slabs when cut into rectangular pieces yield fewer recoverable slabs and that measurement slips were not provided. The authority examined the claimed trade practice against the magnitude of the discrepancies and found the differences excessive and unreasonable (including examples from the invoices). The Form MOV-04 was handed to and signed by the appellant/person in-charge, and no separate measurement slip was shown to undermine the physical verification. The appellate authority accordingly found the trade-practice explanation unacceptable and declined to remit the matter for fresh measurement based on an unproduced slip. [Paras 7, 8]Trade-practice explanation and the absence of separate measurement slips do not vitiate the physical verification; the plea is rejected.Detention and confiscation under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - The order of detention, confiscation of goods and conveyance, and imposition of tax, fine and penalties as recorded in the impugned order were upheld and the appeal was dismissed. - HELD THAT: - On the basis of accepted physical verification and the computed value of excess goods, the adjudicating authority confirmed demand of tax and ordered confiscation and penalties; the goods and conveyance were released upon deposit. The appellate authority, after considering the explanations and records (including FORM MOV-04 and invoice comparisons), found no merit in the appellant's contentions and therefore rejected the appeal, thereby sustaining the detention/confiscation and associated monetary consequences. [Paras 3, 9]Detention, confiscation, tax demand and penalties as imposed in the impugned order are sustained; appeal rejected.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed. The appellate authority upheld the physical verification recorded in FORM MOV-04, rejected the appellant's trade-practice and measurement-slip defenses, and sustained the impugned order of tax demand, confiscation and penalties; goods and conveyance had been released on deposit of dues.

Summary order. Appeals filed by the appellant against the Orders-in-Original dated 05.10.2018 for the periods July-2017 to March-2018 are allowed to be withdrawn and are dismissed as withdrawn.

E-way bill misuse - detention and release under Section 129 - penalty for evasion under Section 122 - corroboration of statements by documentary evidence - off-route/route deviation - intention to evade taxCorroboration of statements by documentary evidence - e-way bill misuse - Whether the demand was confirmed solely on the basis of the driver's statement or was supported by corroborative documentary evidence. - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority examined the record and found that the adjudicating authority did not rely exclusively on the driver's statement. The common portal e-way bill history showed inconsistent entries for the same vehicle-an E-way bill showing the vehicle as 'ODC' when carrying the appellant's goods and subsequent entries showing the same truck as regular cargo when carrying other consignments. The authority also noted timing discrepancies between the declared trip and the interception which were not satisfactorily explained by the appellant. These documentary facts were held to corroborate the driver's statement and to support the finding of irregularity in generation of the e-way bill. [Paras 7, 8]The demand was not based solely on the driver's statement; corroborative documentary evidence supported the adjudicating authority's findings.Intention to evade tax - off-route/route deviation - e-way bill misuse - Whether the appellant deliberately misdeclared the vehicle type as 'ODC' to extend e-way validity and evade payment of IGST, and whether the route/timing contentions overturn that finding. - HELD THAT: - The authority found that entering the vehicle type as 'ODC' extended the permitted time for transport and that the appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the excessive time taken for the journey. The authority observed that vehicle characteristics cannot vary with goods loaded and reliance on route-shortest assertions (e.g., Google map distances) was insufficient to rebut the inference of deliberate misuse. The appellant's explanation of technical problems or innocent mistake was rejected for lack of supporting documentation. On these facts, the conduct was held to demonstrate ill intention to evade GST by using extended validity and off-route activity. [Paras 7, 8]The finding of deliberate misdeclaration of vehicle type to avail extended e-way validity and an intention to evade tax was upheld; route/shortest-route contentions were rejected.Detention and release under Section 129 - penalty for evasion under Section 122 - Whether payment under Section 129(1) and release consequent on Section 129(5) precluded imposition or confirmation of penalties under Section 122(2)(b) and Section 122(3) against the appellant. - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority considered the interplay between release on payment and subsequent penalty imposition. It observed that the penalties confirmed under Section 122 were directed at the transporter and the driver for separate violations-penalty under Section 122(1)(xiv) on the transporter and penalty under Section 122(3) on the driver for clandestine removal-rather than on the appellant. Consequently, the appellant's plea relying on Section 129(5) to negate penalties was held inapplicable to the penalties imposed on other persons. The authority thus rejected the appellant's contention that penalties on the transporter/driver should be set aside by virtue of the release under Section 129(5). [Paras 9]Section 129(5) did not preclude confirmation of penalties imposed on the transporter and driver under Section 122; the appellant's challenge to those penalties was rejected.Final Conclusion: The appeal is rejected and the order of the adjudicating authority is upheld: the demand and penalties were sustained on the basis of corroborative documentary evidence and findings of deliberate misdeclaration and intention to evade tax, and the appellant's pleading under Section 129(5) was held inapplicable to penalties imposed on the transporter and driver.

Refund of unutilised input tax credit on export without payment of integrated tax - place of business and principal place of business - display of registration certificate and GSTIN at principal and additional places of business - tax invoice to contain name and address of supplier - inadmissibility of refund in absence of proper tax invoice - concealment of place of business affecting refund claimRefund of unutilised input tax credit on export without payment of integrated tax - tax invoice to contain name and address of supplier - inadmissibility of refund in absence of proper tax invoice - Whether the refund claim of unutilised ITC on export without payment of integrated tax can be allowed where invoices bear an undeclared place of business. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that supplies were made from an undeclared place of business and invoices showed the undeclared address. The appellate authority observed that the statutory definitions of "place of business" and "principal place of business" require that supplies be made from a defined place and that Rule 18 mandates display of registration certificate and GSTIN at the principal and additional places of business. Rule 46/44 requires a tax invoice to contain the name and address of the supplier. The authority held that invoices issued from an undeclared place of business are not legal and proper tax invoices for the purposes of claiming refund. In the absence of proper tax invoices, refund is not admissible under the CGST rules. The authority also noted that addition of the undeclared place of business was sought only after verification and issuance of the show cause notice, indicating concealment of the activity from the department, which reinforced the conclusion of inadmissibility of the refund claim. [Paras 4]The refund claim is inadmissible and the impugned order rejecting the refund is upheld; the appeal is dismissed.Final Conclusion: The appellate authority upheld the rejection of the refund claim because supplies were made from an undeclared place of business and invoices issued therefrom were not proper tax invoices; consequently the refund was held inadmissible and the appeal dismissed.

Refund of unutilized ITC on export without payment of integrated tax - Place of business and principal place of business - Display of registration certificate and Goods and Services Tax Identification Number at place of business - Validity of tax invoice containing correct name and address of supplier - Refund inadmissibility under Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017 for absence of proper tax invoices - Concealment of place of business as ground for rejection of refund claimRefund of unutilized ITC on export without payment of integrated tax - Place of business and principal place of business - Validity of tax invoice containing correct name and address of supplier - Refund inadmissibility under Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017 for absence of proper tax invoices - Admissibility of the refund claim for unutilised input tax credit where supplies were made from an undeclared place of business and invoices showed that undeclared address. - HELD THAT: - The authority found that supplies were effected from a place of business not declared in the appellant's registration and that tax invoices issued carried that undeclared address. Sections defining place of business and principal place of business and Rule 18 (display of registration and GSTIN) and Rule 46 (requirements of tax invoice) were applied to conclude that invoices issued from an undeclared place could not be treated as proper tax invoices. In the absence of proper tax invoices, refund of unutilised ITC under Rule 89 was held not admissible. The appellant's attempt to add the undeclared place only after issuance of the show cause notice was treated as concealment of the activity from the department and weighed against the appellant. The appellate authority accordingly upheld the adjudicating authority's rejection of the refund claim on these grounds. [Paras 4]The refund claim was rejected and the adjudicating authority's order upholding inadmissibility of the refund was affirmed.Validity of tax invoice containing correct name and address of supplier - Effect of non-production of bill No. 84 dated 23.08.2017 issued by M/s Rudraksh Tyres on the refund claim. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority recorded that the appellant failed to produce the referenced bill despite it being specifically noted in the show cause notice. The absence of that supporting document was one of the deficiencies relied upon in rejecting the refund claim, contributing to the finding that requisite documentary evidence for entitlement to refund was not furnished. [Paras 2, 4]Non-production of the specified bill was treated as a deficiency and contributed to dismissal of the refund claim.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed; the adjudicating authority's rejection of the refund of unutilised input tax credit was upheld on the grounds that supplies were made from an undeclared place of business, invoices bearing the undeclared address were not proper tax invoices, and relevant supporting documents were not produced, rendering the refund claim inadmissible.

Adjusted Total Turnover - refund of unutilized input tax credit of compensation cess - Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - definition of "turnover in State" / "turnover in Union territory" - overriding effect of rule over circular - Circular No. 1/1/2017 - applicability to compensation cessAdjusted Total Turnover - Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - definition of "turnover in State" / "turnover in Union territory" - Whether the adjusted turnover for computing refund of unutilized ITC of compensation cess can be confined to turnover of compensation cess alone, contrary to the definition in Rule 89(4). - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority examined the definition of "Adjusted Total Turnover" as provided in Rule 89(4)(E) read with the definition of "turnover in State"/"turnover in Union territory". On a plain reading, Adjusted Total Turnover comprises the aggregate value of taxable and exempt supplies (excluding specified inward supplies) and exports, and does not permit treating only the turnover of compensation cess as the adjusted turnover. The appellant's contention to confine adjusted turnover to cess turnover was found inconsistent with the statutory definition in the Rule. The authority therefore rejected the submission that the formula under Rule 89(4) should be modified to adopt a cess-only adjusted turnover, holding that the rule's definition governs the computation. [Paras 6]The adjusted turnover cannot be limited to turnover of compensation cess; the computation under Rule 89(4) must follow the statutory definition.Overriding effect of rule over circular - Circular No. 1/1/2017 - applicability to compensation cess - Whether Circular No. 1/1/2017 requires or permits altering the formula under Rule 89(4) for computation of adjusted turnover for compensation cess refunds, or whether the Rule prevails. - HELD THAT: - The authority considered the appellant's reliance on Circular No. 1/1/2017 which addresses the applicability of provisions relating to zero-rated supplies to compensation cess. However, the Circular does not purport to amend or alter the definition of Adjusted Total Turnover in Rule 89(4). Where the Rule prescribes the method and definition, a Circular cannot override or change the statutory provision. Consequently, the request to change the formula in light of the Circular was not entertained, and the Rule was held to have overriding effect over the Circular in the computation of refund. [Paras 6, 7]Circular No. 1/1/2017 does not change the statutory formula in Rule 89(4); the rule prevails and the appellant's request to modify the formula on the basis of the Circular is not allowable.Final Conclusion: Appeals dismissed; the impugned orders rejecting portions of the refund claims are upheld as the computation must follow the definition of Adjusted Total Turnover in Rule 89(4) and the Circular cannot alter that statutory formula.

Refund of unutilized input tax credit on zero-rated supplies (LUT/without payment of IGST) - compliance with Rule 89(4A) and Rule 89(4B) of the CGST Rules - deemed export procedure and documentary/undertaking requirements (Notification No.48/2017 and Circular 14/2017) - effect of amalgamation on registration, cancellation and transfer of unutilized ITC under Section 87 of the CGST Act and Rule 41 of the CGST Rules - requirement to furnish prescribed information/documentary evidence for refund claimsRefund of unutilized input tax credit on zero-rated supplies (LUT/without payment of IGST) - compliance with Rule 89(4A) and Rule 89(4B) of the CGST Rules - deemed export procedure and documentary/undertaking requirements (Notification No.48/2017 and Circular 14/2017) - requirement to furnish prescribed information/documentary evidence for refund claims - Validity of refund claims for unutilized ITC accumulated during July, August and September 2017 where requisite information under Rule 89(4A)/89(4B) and related circulars was not furnished - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority found that the adjudicating authority rightly rejected the refund claims because the appellant did not furnish the information required under Rule 89(4A) (linked to Notification No.48/2017) or Rule 89(4B) (linked to other notifications) nor follow the prescribed procedure in Circular No.14/2017-GST. Paragraph 41 of Circular No.125/44/2019-GST (cited) clarifies that supplies notified as deemed exports require specific documentary evidence and undertakings when refund is sought by either supplier or recipient; the Circular 14/2017 procedure for procurement by EOUs (Form-A/Form-B, endorsed invoices, digital records and monthly statements) is mandatory for claiming deemed export benefits. The appellant, being a 100% EOU, failed to comply with these procedural and documentary requirements; non-compliance with the statutory and circularly-prescribed mechanism meant the refund claims could not be admitted on merits. [Paras 5, 6]Refund claims for the three months were rightly rejected for failure to furnish the information and follow the deemed-export/refund procedure under Rule 89(4A)/89(4B) and the relevant circulars.Effect of amalgamation on registration, cancellation and transfer of unutilized ITC under Section 87 of the CGST Act and Rule 41 of the CGST Rules - requirement to transfer unutilized credit in FORM GST ITC-02 and to cancel registration (REG-16) on amalgamation - Consequences of the appellant's amalgamation and whether failure to cancel the old GSTIN or transfer unutilized ITC precluded refund claims - HELD THAT: - The authority recorded that the appellant company was amalgamated into another entity by order dated 14.09.2017 and, under Section 87 and Rule 41, the earlier entity's registration should have been cancelled (by filing REG-16) and unutilized input tax credit transferred to the transferee via FORM GST ITC-02. The appellant did not cancel the old registration nor transfer the unutilized credit as mandated. Because the statutory scheme treats pre-order transactions distinctly and requires electronic transfer/acceptance mechanisms, the appellant's non-compliance with Section 87 and Rule 41 constituted a separate ground disallowing the refund applications. [Paras 7, 8]Refunds were correctly refused also on the ground that the appellant failed to effect cancellation of the old GST registration and transfer unutilized ITC after amalgamation as required by Section 87 and Rule 41.Final Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed and the impugned orders rejecting the refund claims for July, August and September 2017 are upheld: refunds were not admissible because the appellant failed to comply with the documentary/procedural requirements for deemed-export refunds under Rule 89(4A)/89(4B) and the related circulars, and additionally failed to cancel the transferor's GST registration and transfer unutilized ITC after amalgamation as required by Section 87 and Rule 41.

Deemed export - refund of accumulated input tax credit - compliance with Circular No.14/14/2017-GST - prior intimation in Form A, endorsement of tax invoices and maintenance of digital records in Form B - requirement of supplier's undertaking as per para 4 of Circular No.24/24/2017 GST - claim by recipient or supplier of deemed export supplies (Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017)Deemed export - refund of accumulated input tax credit - compliance with Circular No.14/14/2017-GST - prior intimation in Form A, endorsement of tax invoices and maintenance of digital records in Form B - requirement of supplier's undertaking as per para 4 of Circular No.24/24/2017 GST - claim by recipient or supplier of deemed export supplies (Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017) - Entitlement to refund of input tax credit accumulated during July, August, September and October 2017 by a 100% Export Oriented Unit where the prescribed procedure for deemed export supplies under the said circulars was not followed. - HELD THAT: - The appellant, a 100% Export Oriented Unit, claimed refund of ITC accumulated on account of exports made without payment of integrated tax for the months stated. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims on the sole ground of non compliance with the procedure prescribed in Circular No.14/14/2017 GST dated 06.11.2017 and the requirement of an undertaking under para 4 of Circular No.24/24/2017 GST dated 21.12.2017. Circular No.14/14/2017 GST mandates prior intimation in Form A to the registered supplier, the supplier's jurisdictional officer and the recipient's jurisdictional officer, endorsement of tax invoices on receipt and furnishing of digital records in Form B with an audit trail; these procedural safeguards are in addition to other statutory and policy conditions. Rule 89 (as amended) permits claim of refund by recipient or supplier in respect of deemed export supplies, and notifications identify supplies that are to be treated as deemed exports. The appellate authority accepted the adjudicating authority's finding that the appellant did not comply with the mandatory procedural requirements including the endorsed invoice and digital record/undertaking procedure, and that the clarified position in later circulars (including Circular No.125/44/2019 GST para 41) reinforces the necessity of adhering to the procedure. In the absence of compliance with the prescribed procedure and safeguards, the appellant cannot claim the refund of accumulated ITC for the months in question.Appeals rejected; impugned orders upholding rejection of refund claims for July, August, September and October, 2017 are affirmed.Final Conclusion: The appellate authority affirms the adjudicating authority's rejection of the appellant's refund claims for the specified months on the ground of non compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements for deemed export supplies as prescribed in the relevant GST circulars and rules; the appeals are dismissed.

Refund of unutilised input tax credit on zero-rated supplies - interpretation of provisos to Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 - drawback - customs component versus central/excise component - transition period drawback entitlement (July, 2017 to Sept., 2017) - eligibility for refund where supplier avails only customs drawback - inadmissibility of input tax credit under Section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017Refund of unutilised input tax credit on zero-rated supplies - drawback - customs component versus central/excise component - transition period drawback entitlement (July, 2017 to Sept., 2017) - eligibility for refund where supplier avails only customs drawback - Whether the rejection of refund of IGST and CGST on the ground that the appellant claimed higher drawback under Column A of the drawback schedule for the transition period was sustainable. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority rejected the refund contending that the appellant claimed a higher rate of drawback under Column A. The authority examined the schedule and notes to Notification No. 131/2016-Cus. and Circular No. 22/2017-Cus. (transition period 1-7-2017 to 30-9-2017) and found that where the rates in Columns (4) and (6) are the same the rate pertains only to the Customs component and is available irrespective of whether the exporter availed Cenvat/credit. The appellant's goods (Tariff Item No. 6914) attract identical rates in the relevant columns (1.5%), indicating only the Customs component was claimed. Circular No. 22/2017-Cus. expressly allowed exporters during the transition period the option to claim only the Customs portion of AIRs and still avail input tax credit or refund of IGST. Further clarificatory communications recorded in the order (including C.B.E. & C. Circular and later Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST) confirm that a supplier availing drawback only in respect of basic customs duty is eligible for refund of unutilised input tax credit. Applying these determinative provisions and clarifications, the rejection solely on the basis of alleged higher Column A drawback was held to be unjustified and that part of the rejection was set aside. [Paras 6, 8]Allowed the appeals to the extent of setting aside rejection of refund of IGST and CGST which was based on the allegation of claiming higher drawback under Column A for the transition period.Inadmissibility of input tax credit under Section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether the appellant's refund claims were correctly rejected insofar as credit was held inadmissible under Section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority had rejected part of the refund on the ground that the credit was inadmissible under Section 17(5). The appellant did not advance any plausible ground to assail that finding before the appellate authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) found no basis to interfere with the adjudicating authority's conclusion on inadmissible credit and consequently upheld the rejection of refund to the extent it related to credit deemed inadmissible under Section 17(5). [Paras 9]Appeals dismissed insofar as they assail the rejection of refund on account of inadmissible credit under Section 17(5).Final Conclusion: For the transition period July, 2017 to Sept., 2017 the appeals are allowed insofar as the rejection of IGST and CGST refund based on alleged higher Column A drawback is set aside (appellant held to have claimed only the customs component); however, the appeals are dismissed to the extent the refund was denied on account of inadmissible input tax credit under Section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017.

Summary order. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn at the request of the appellant, who stated the refund amount claimed for July 2017 had been re credited to its electronic credit ledger, rendering the appeal unnecessary.

Credit of rejected refund claim - Re-credit to electronic credit ledger - Rule 93 - Credit of rejected refund claim and re-credit procedure - Circular No. 17/17/2017 - procedure for re-credit and FORM GST RFD-01B - Form GST PMT-03 and Form GST RFD-01B - Principle of natural justice - opportunity to be heard - Recovery of excess refund sanctioned in cash distinct from re-creditCredit of rejected refund claim - Re-credit to electronic credit ledger - Rule 93 - Credit of rejected refund claim and re-credit procedure - Form GST PMT-03 and Form GST RFD-01B - Principle of natural justice - opportunity to be heard - Re-credit of amounts debited for refund claims rejected either fully or partly and the procedure to be followed when such re-credit was not allowed by the adjudicating authority. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority had declined to re-credit amounts which were earlier debited from the appellant's electronic ledger to the extent those refund claims were rejected on grounds such as non submission of invoices. Rule 93 and para 2.10 of Circular No. 17/17/2017 require that where any amount claimed as refund is rejected, the amount debited to the extent of rejection shall be re credited to the electronic credit ledger by an order in FORM GST PMT 03 and credited using FORM GST RFD 01B. The Court found that the impugned orders failed to allow such re credit and that the statutory and circular provisions do not condition re credit on submission of invoices at the refund stage. Further, the adjudicating authority did not afford the appellant an opportunity to be heard specifically on the question of re credit, which implicates the principle of natural justice. For these reasons the impugned orders are legally incorrect to the extent they denied re credit without giving the appellant a proper opportunity to present its case. [Paras 12]Impugned orders set aside to the extent of denial of re credit; adjudicating authority directed to allow the appellant to present its case and to re consider and pass appropriate orders for re credit in accordance with Rule 93 and Circular No. 17/17/2017.Recovery of excess refund sanctioned in cash distinct from re-credit - Whether amounts provisionally sanctioned in cash in excess are recoverable when re credit to electronic ledger is also admissible. - HELD THAT: - The Court distinguished sanction of refund in cash from the remedy of re credit in the electronic credit ledger. Where an excess amount has been disbursed in cash, that excess is recoverable notwithstanding that re credit of the corresponding ITC is admissible. The adjudicating authority is therefore entitled to recover the excess cash sanctioned, together with interest, even though the appellant may be entitled to re credit in its electronic ledger. [Paras 14]Recovery of amounts excess sanctioned in cash is maintainable; such recoveries may be made in cash with interest, while re credit remains admissible separately.Credit of rejected refund claim - Re-credit to electronic credit ledger - Whether the department may proceed to recover ITC of inputs where the appellant availed ITC without proper documents, notwithstanding entitlement to re credit for rejected refund portions. - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that allowing re credit under Rule 93 and the Circular does not fetter the department's statutory power to undertake recovery action if, upon appropriate adjudication, it is established that ITC was wrongly availed without proper invoices or documents. The department is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to recover wrongly availed ITC after following requisite procedures. [Paras 13]Department permitted to initiate or continue recovery proceedings for ITC availed without proper documents, subject to law.Final Conclusion: Appeals disposed: impugned orders set aside insofar as they denied re credit of amounts debited for rejected refund claims; adjudicating authority directed to afford the appellant opportunity to be heard and to re consider re credit in accordance with Rule 93 and Circular No.17/17/2017. Department remains free to recover ITC wrongly availed without proper documents; amounts excess sanctioned in cash are recoverable with interest while re credit remains admissible.

Withdrawal of appeal - Allowance of withdrawal and dismissal as withdrawn - Refund re filing after debit through GST DRC 03 and rectification as per CBIC Circular No.94/13/2009 dated 28.03.2019 - Re credit to electronic credit ledger under Rule 93(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017Withdrawal of appeal - Allowance of withdrawal and dismissal as withdrawn - Refund re filing after debit through GST DRC 03 and rectification as per CBIC Circular No.94/13/2009 dated 28.03.2019 - Re credit to electronic credit ledger under Rule 93(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Whether the appeals filed by the appellant should be allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as withdrawn. - HELD THAT: - The appellant, having sought withdrawal of the appeals by letter dated 14.06.2019, stated that the matter had been settled by reference to CBIC Circular No.94/13/2009 dated 28.03.2019 which permits re filing of the refund after debiting the amount through the credit ledger by filing GST DRC 03 and rectifying the noted deficiencies. In view of the appellant's explicit request to withdraw the appeals and their affirmation that they did not seek further personal hearing, the appellate authority exercised its discretion to allow the withdrawal. The sanction in the impugned original orders regarding re credit to the electronic credit ledger under Rule 93(1) CGST Rules, 2017 remains subject to the appellant's option to re file the refund claim in accordance with the circular and rectification procedure.The appeals are allowed to be withdrawn and are dismissed as withdrawn.Final Conclusion: On the appellant's request to withdraw the appeals and in light of their reliance on CBIC Circular No.94/13/2009 for re filing the refund after debit through GST DRC 03 and rectification, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the eight appeals as withdrawn.

Jurisdiction of appellate authority - non-entertaining of appeals by officers across CGST and SGST/UTGST cadres (Section 6(3) of the CGST Act) - forum for appeal against orders passed by State Tax OfficerJurisdiction of appellate authority - non-entertaining of appeals by officers across CGST and SGST/UTGST cadres (Section 6(3) of the CGST Act) - Appellate authority at Jaipur lacks jurisdiction to entertain appeal against an order passed by State Tax Officer-I, Mobile Squad, Amirgarh (Gujarat). - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority below was State Tax Officer-I, Mobile Squad, Amirgarh (Gujarat). Section 6(3) of the CGST Act mandates that proceedings for rectification, appeal and revision, wherever applicable, of any order passed by an officer appointed under the CGST Act shall not lie before an officer appointed under the SGST or UTGST Act, and corresponding provisions in the SGST/UTGST Acts preclude cross-cadre appellate jurisdiction. Applying that principle, the Commissioner (Appeals), Central GST, Jaipur is not the competent forum to hear an appeal against the impugned order passed by the State Tax Officer in Gujarat. The correctness of the impugned order on merits was not adjudicated by this authority because the appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The appellate remedy against the order therefore lies before the jurisdictional SGST authority of Gujarat as indicated in the order below. [Paras 5]Appeal dismissed as beyond the jurisdiction of this appellate authority; appeal to be agitated before the jurisdictional SGST authority of Gujarat.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central GST, Jaipur; the proper forum for challenging the impugned order is the jurisdictional SGST authority of Gujarat.

Refund of IGST on export of services - requirement of Bank Realisation Certificate or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate for export of services - Rule 89(2)(c) of CGST Rules, 2017 (documentary requirement for refund on export of services) - realisation of export proceeds as a pre-condition for refund of export of services - CBEC Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST dated 15.03.2018, para 12 (clarification on BRC/FIRC requirement)Rule 89(2)(c) of CGST Rules, 2017 (documentary requirement for refund on export of services) - requirement of Bank Realisation Certificate or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate for export of services - CBEC Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST dated 15.03.2018, para 12 (clarification on BRC/FIRC requirement) - Whether the refund claim for IGST paid on export of services could be allowed in the absence of Bank Realisation Certificates (BRC) or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRC), and whether the bank advices submitted by the appellant sufficed as BRC/FIRC. - HELD THAT: - Rule 89(2)(c) requires that a refund application for export of services be accompanied by a statement of invoice numbers and dates together with the relevant Bank Realisation Certificates or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates. The Board's clarification in para 12 of Circular No. 37/11/2018 GST confirms that realization of convertible foreign exchange is a condition for export of services and that BRC/FIRC are required for processing such refund claims. The appellant submitted bank advices and transaction certificates from their bank, but the advices produced were unsigned, did not reference the invoice numbers, and showed remittance amounts (USD 100.00) that did not correspond to the invoice values placed on record (for example, invoices of USD 23,250 and USD 31,850). On this factual basis the documents tendered could not be accepted as BRC/FIRC required under Rule 89(2)(c). Having regard to the statutory rule and the Board's clarification, non production of proper BRC/FIRC justified rejection of the refund claim.Appeal rejected; refund claim refused for failure to produce Bank Realisation Certificates/Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates as required.Final Conclusion: The appellate authority upheld the original order rejecting the refund of IGST on export of services for August 2017 on the ground that the appellant failed to produce the requisite Bank Realisation Certificates/Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates; the bank advices submitted did not satisfy the documentary requirements under Rule 89(2)(c) and the CBEC clarification.

Refund under section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Conditions for refund of Central Excise duty on returned goods after the appointed day - Identifiability of returned goods - Return of goods by a registered person deemed to be a supplyIdentifiability of returned goods - Refund under section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether the appellant established that the returned/rejected goods were identifiable to the satisfaction of the proper officer so as to qualify for refund under section 142(1). - HELD THAT: - Section 142(1) makes identifiability of the returned goods to the satisfaction of the proper officer a pre-condition for grant of refund of duty paid earlier. The adjudicating authority found that the appellant's RG-1/stock records record quantities in weight (metric tonnes) while invoices, transport documents and out gate passes record quantities in numbers, creating a mismatch which prevents satisfactory identification. The appellant did not satisfactorily explain why entries were maintained in different units or supply documentary linkage sufficient to remove the doubt. On this factual and evidential basis the proper officer could not be satisfied about identity of goods and the condition in section 142(1) remained unfulfilled. [Paras 6]The appellant failed to establish that the returned goods were identifiable to the satisfaction of the proper officer; refund is not admissible on this ground.Return of goods by a registered person deemed to be a supply - Refund under section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether refund is admissible where the returned goods were returned by a person registered under GST. - HELD THAT: - Section 142(1) entitles refund only where goods are returned by a person other than a registered person; the proviso treats return by a registered person as a deemed supply. The adjudicating authority recorded, and the appellant did not dispute, that the receivers who returned the goods were registered taxpayers. Consequently the statutory pre-condition that returns be made by non-registered persons was not satisfied, and the return must be treated as a deemed supply liable to GST in the hands of the returning registered person. Therefore refund under section 142(1) is not available. [Paras 7]Refund is not admissible because the goods were returned by registered persons and such return is deemed to be a supply under the proviso to section 142(1).Final Conclusion: Both grounds on which the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims - failure to establish identifiability of returned goods and return by registered persons (deemed supply) - are upheld; the five appeals are dismissed and the refund claims stand rejected.

Detention and seizure in transit under section 129 of the CGST/HPGST Act - minor errors in E Way Bill Part B and consequential relief - GST Council Circular No. 64/38/2018 and State circular - procedural relaxation for minor mistakes - imposition of reduced penalty under section 125 in lieu of proceedings under section 129 - validity of E Way Bill where Part A is correct and Part B contains inadvertent vehicle number errorDetention and seizure in transit under section 129 of the CGST/HPGST Act - minor errors in E Way Bill Part B and consequential relief - GST Council Circular No. 64/38/2018 and State circular - procedural relaxation for minor mistakes - validity of E Way Bill where Part A is correct and Part B contains inadvertent vehicle number error - Whether imposition of penalty and demand under section 129 for movement of goods when Part A of the E Way Bill was correct but Part B contained an inadvertent error in the vehicle number was sustainable, and whether the Circular providing for non initiation of section 129 proceedings and imposition of a reduced penalty applied. - HELD THAT: - The Appellate Authority found that the consignment was accompanied by valid invoice and an E Way Bill whose Part A particulars matched the goods and tax entries; the only defect was an incorrect vehicle number in Part B (one or two digits). The GST Council Circular No. 64/38/2018 and the corresponding State circular provide that where a consignment is accompanied by invoice and an E Way Bill, proceedings under section 129 need not be initiated for certain minor errors (including one or two characters/digits of the vehicle number), and that in such cases a reduced penalty under section 125 (specified in the circular) should be imposed. The respondent's contention that the circular is merely advisory and that section 129 must therefore be invoked was rejected; the circular and the State notification implementing its procedure were held to be applicable and to have been overlooked by the adjudicating authority. There was no evidence placed before the Authority to prove that the appellant had adopted a systematic modus operandi to evade tax by mis stating vehicle numbers. In these circumstances the imposition of full tax and penalty under section 129 was held to be unwarranted and unsustainable; the prescribed lesser penalty under the circular was to be applied. [Paras 7, 8]The penalty and demand under section 129 were set aside; a reduced penalty of Rs. 500 under SGST and Rs. 500 under CGST (under section 125 as per the circular) was imposed in accordance with the GST Council and State circulars.Refund of tax and penalty deposited - application of circular relieving invocation of section 129 - Whether the additional demand deposited by the appellant arising from the section 129 order should be refunded in consequence of the appellate finding. - HELD THAT: - Having held that the invocation of section 129 was not justified in the facts of the case and that only the reduced penalty under the circular should apply, the Authority ordered that the additional demand deposited by the appellant pursuant to the impugned order be refunded. The appellate conclusion flows directly from the determination that the procedural relaxation in the circular was applicable and that the higher levy under section 129 was unwarranted. [Paras 8]The additional demand deposited by the appellant is to be refunded; only the reduced penalties under the circular are to be retained/treated as payable.Final Conclusion: The appellate authority set aside the section 129 demand and penalty imposed by the adjudicating officer, applied the GST Council and State circulars providing relief for minor E Way Bill errors, ordered refund of the excess amount deposited, and directed imposition of the reduced penalty of Rs. 500 under SGST and Rs. 500 under CGST in accordance with the circular.