TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 1341
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere in after called as the "impugned orders") passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Division-A, Jaipur (Here in after called as the "adjudication authority") as mentioned below:- S. No. 1 Appeal No 2 Order in Original No & date (lmpugned order) 3 Order sanctioning /rejecting refund 1 CGST/JP/25/IX/18 78/Ref/2018 dated 24.07.2018 The refund of Rs. 1,57,140/- filed on 13.04.18 under section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 for Central Excise Duty paid on goods cleared before appointed day but the goods were returned after appointed day, has been rejected. 2 CGST/JP/24/IX/18 77/Ref/2018 dated 24.07.2018 The refund of Rs. 1,28.220/- filed on 13.04.18 under section 142(1) of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the goods cleared by various invoices mentioned in the impugned orders but the impugned goods returned as rejected from registered buyer under Section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. 2.2 The appellant has paid Central Excise Duty on the impugned goods cleared before appointed day but the goods was returned after appointed day. On examination, it was found that the refund claims were filed to the jurisdictional authority, thereafter, the jurisdictional authority issued Show Cause Notices to the appellant as to why the refund claims be rejected on the various reasons. After considering the submissions made by the appellant, the adjudicating authority vide the impugned orders as mentioned in the column No.3 of Para 1 of this order has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....handrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro, Jharkhand and M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited are exempt from payment of GST therefore, the return of rejected goods are not supply in the hands of M/s Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro, Jharkhand and M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited. Consequently, the condition in the Section 142(1) of the CGST, 2017 is satisfied. 4. Personal hearing in all these matters was held on 29.11.2018 wherein Shri Pankaj Malik, Partner of M/s Pankaj Malik & Co., appeared for personal hearing in the case on behalf of the appellant and reiterated the grounds of appeals mentioned in the appeal memorandum and requested to decide the case accord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ointed day. (C) If the proper officer can satisfactorily identify the goods. (D) If such goods are returned by a person, other than a registered person (E) If the said goods are returned by a registered person, the return of such goods shall be deemed to be a supply. 6. The adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claims filed by the appellant on the two reasons. Therefore I take up the reasons one by one. The adjudicating authority has rejected all the refund claims on the ground that in the copy of Stock/RG-1 register, the rejected goods are mentioned in weight as the unit, while in all the documents i.e. invoices, transport note, out gate pass, the quantity of rejected goods are mentioned in Number, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the refund claims on the reason that the receiver of the goods are registered with GSTN and therefore they were required to return the rejected goods to the appellant as supply in terms of section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The appellant has contested that the goods supplied by them were rejected and returned back, therefore it is not a case of supply in the hands of M/s Damodar Valley Corporation or by M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited and that the receiver of goods namely M/s Damodar Valley Corporation or by M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited are exempt from payment of GST and therefore, return of rejected goods are not supply. I find that the appellant has not disputed the findings of the adjudicating authority that the rec....