Appeal rejected: Delay, time-barred refund, wrong claim, undertaking not to appeal.

The appellant's appeal was rejected due to delay in filing, a time-barred refund application, a wrong claim of Input Tax Credit, and an undertaking not to file an appeal. The delay in filing was condoned due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The refund application rejection was upheld as the appellant failed to reply to a show cause notice. The appellant withdrew the inadmissible ITC claim during the hearing. By submitting an undertaking not to appeal, the appellant forfeited the right to appeal. The appeal was rejected without considering the merits, upholding the initial decision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Time-barred refund application.
3. Wrong claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
4. Undertaking not to file an appeal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appellant filed the appeal with a delay of 201 days from the normal period prescribed under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the late receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order and cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment extending the period of limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The appellate authority condoned the delay, considering the pandemic situation and relevant notifications issued by the CBIC extending the time limits for various compliances.

2. Time-barred Refund Application:
The appellant claimed that the refund application was filed within the two-year period prescribed under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that no reply to the show cause notice was received, assuming that the claimant had nothing to submit. The appellant contended that the refund application was not time-barred and was filed within the prescribed period, making the order erroneous and illegal.

3. Wrong Claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC):
The refund claim included ITC of IGST on capital goods amounting to Rs. 15,02,542/-, which the appellant admitted was inadmissible as per sub-rule 4 of Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017. During the personal hearing, the appellant agreed to withdraw the refund claim to the extent of the ITC amount on capital goods and requested a refund of the remaining eligible ITC amount of Rs. 25,61,458/-.

4. Undertaking Not to File an Appeal:
The appellant had submitted an undertaking to the proper officer that they would not file an appeal against the refund rejection and requested the re-credit of the rejected amount to their electronic credit ledger. The proper officer re-credited the amount through Form PMT-03 as per Rule 93(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The appellate authority found that the appellant had forfeited the right to file an appeal by submitting this undertaking, making the appeal non-maintainable.

Conclusion:
The appellate authority concluded that the appellant misled the facts while filing the appeal and had forfeited the right to appeal by submitting an undertaking not to file an appeal. Consequently, the appeal was rejected without going into the merits of the case, and the order passed by the adjudicating authority was upheld. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---