AAAR denies IGST exemption for iron ore pellet export operations under Section 54(3) CGST Act

AAAR Goa rejected appellant's appeal regarding IGST liability on iron ore job-work operations. Appellant imported iron ore for conversion to pellets and export, claiming service export exemption from IGST refund restrictions. AAAR held that appellant exported goods, not services, and exported pellets were "subject to export duty" under proviso to Section 54(3) CGST Act despite nil duty rate through exemption notification. Court applied plain statutory interpretation, noting legislature's conscious choice of words. Appeal filed within time limit was rejected on merits, while additional grounds filed later were rejected for limitation under Section 100(2) CGST Act. AAR ruling maintained.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Applicability of IGST on import of iron ore for conversion into pellets and subsequent export.
2. Liability of the appellant to pay IGST on the imported iron ore.
3. Eligibility of the appellant to avail input tax credit for IGST paid.
4. Eligibility of the appellant to claim a refund of unutilized input tax credit on export of services.
5. Additional grounds of appeal regarding the applicability of IGST on imported iron ore.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of IGST on Import of Iron Ore:
The appellant sought an advance ruling on whether IGST at 5% is applicable on the import of iron ore for conversion into pellets and subsequent export. The lower authority held that the appellant is liable to pay IGST on the import of iron ore.

2. Liability to Pay IGST:
The appellant contended that the lower authority erred in holding that they are liable to pay IGST on imported iron ore. They argued that the provisions of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, read with Section 5(1) of the IGST Act, 2017, were not applicable. However, the appellate authority found that this ground of appeal was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the statutory period.

3. Eligibility to Avail Input Tax Credit:
The lower authority ruled that the appellant is eligible to avail input tax credit towards the payment of IGST under Section 16 of the IGST Act. This ruling was not contested by the appellant in the appeal.

4. Eligibility to Claim Refund of Unutilized Input Tax Credit:
The appellant contested the lower authority's ruling that they are not eligible for a refund of unutilized input tax credit on the export of services. The appellant argued that they are exporting services, not goods, and thus the proviso to Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, which disallows refunds where goods exported are subject to export duty, should not apply. The appellate authority found that the appellant's contention was not tenable as the exported iron ore pellets are goods and are subject to export duty, even if the duty rate is nil. The appellate authority upheld the lower authority's ruling, stating that the statutory provision clearly disallows refunds for goods subject to export duty.

5. Additional Grounds of Appeal:
The appellant introduced an additional ground of appeal, arguing that the lower authority erred in holding them liable to pay IGST on imported iron ore. The appellate authority found this additional ground to be barred by limitation, as it was filed beyond the statutory period allowed for appeals. Consequently, the additional ground was rejected without delving into its merits.

Conclusion:
The appellate authority upheld the lower authority's ruling that the appellant is liable to pay IGST on the import of iron ore, is eligible to avail input tax credit, but is not eligible for a refund of unutilized input tax credit on the export of goods or services. The additional grounds of appeal were rejected on the basis of being time-barred. The appeal dated 26.06.2019 and the additional grounds of appeal dated 16.01.2020 were both rejected.

---