TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1607
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferred to as "the appellant"/"M/s.CCPL") registered under the GST law having GSTIN 30AAACC5479J1ZP, filed an application under Section 97 of the Goa Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the SGST Act) and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the CGST Act) seeking an Advance Ruling in respect of the following questions,- 1 Whether IGST at 5% of assessable value is applicable on import of iron ore for conversion into pellets and export the resultant product (Iron ore pellets) back to same supplier in view of the fact that import duty is not applicable in view of the exemption under General Exemption No. 66 (Exemption Notification No. 32/97-Cus dated 1st April, 1997) for job work. 2. If answer to question (i) is yes, whether the applicant as recipient of imported iron ore will be liable to pay the IGST under applicant's GSTIN as the applicant in any case is the consignee of the imported iron ore. 3. If answer to question (ii) is yes, whether the applicant can avail the input tax credit for the IGST so paid as per Section 16 of the CGST Act. 4. Whether the applicant can claim refund of unutilised input tax credit o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the appellant reiterated their written submissions. Further, they contended that they are entitled to claim refund of unutilised input tax credit on export of services as per Section 16(3)(a) of the IGST Act and 54(3) of the CGST Act. They also contended that the Learned AAR had erred in holding that the appellant is liable to pay IGST on iron ore imported into India in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Section 5(1) of the IGST Act, 2017. Discussion and Findings: 7. We have carefully gone through the material on record including the facts involved, the lower Authority's ruling, the relevant statutory provisions and the appellant's grounds/submissions against the Advance Ruling. 8. The short issue for determination is whether the appellant is entitled to claim the refund of unutilised input tax credit on export of services as per Section 16(3)(a) of the IGST Act and 54(3) of the CGST Act, as claimed by them or whether they are not entitled to the said refund, as held in the impugned, ruling of the lower authority. The further issue for determination is w.r.t. additional ground of appeal taken by the appellant against t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lets, the pellets are exported to the non-resident party or to any other non-resident parties as nominated by the non-resident with whom they have/intend to have contract. Hence, their contention that they are exporting only services, but not goods is not tenable. 11.1, The next question is whether the said goods exported by appellant are subjected to export duty' whereby the proviso to Sec. 54(3) ibid is attracted. The lower authority has examined this aspect and considered that the rate of export duty on iron ore pellets is Nil, however Nil rate of tax is also a rate of tax/duty; and that since the goods exported are covered under Second Schedule to the Export Tariff appended to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 the said goods are to be considered as subjected to tax i.e. export duty; and hence, the exclusion under proviso to Section 54(3) is applicable, whereby the appellant is not eligible for refund of unutilized input tax credit. 11.2. We do not find any flaw in the above reasoning and findings of the lower authority. That is, the statutory provision i.e, proviso to Sec.54 (3) ibid speaks of goods which are subject to export duty'. The phrase 'subject to export deity....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Act and are subjected to duty of customs. The only effect of notification issued under Section 25(1) is to reduce the effective rate of duty leviable but goods continue to be dutiable. Therefore, the issue of notification under Section 25(1) does not mean that the goods in question are not chargeable to levy of duty under Section 12 of the Customs Act. An exemption only suspends or eclipses chargeability which can be revived the movement the exemption is lifted or withdrawn and can be construed as chargeability under 'nil rates' if rate under Section 12 is the whole basis for chargeability 11984 (16) E.L.T 183 (Ker.) A 1983 E.L.T. 1688 (Del.) relied on/, [paras 17and 21] The above decision of Hon'ble Tribunal was approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 25 08.1999 dismissing the appeal filed by the party against the same. 11.4. in the instant case also, the exported goods are specified in the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as subjected to export duty; while by a Notification issued under Section 25 (1) of the Customs Act, the same were exempted. Hence, the ratio of and principles laid down in the above decisions is clearly applicable, whereby the go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... determinative factor of legislative intent. 14. On a careful reading of the correct position of the statute vis-a-vis the appellant's contention, it clearly emerges that the language employed in the statute as discussed in the paras above are plain and unambiguous and it amply conveys the legislative intent. 15. The appellant, vide their letter Ref No. CCPL/GST/19-20/23 dated 16.01.2020 have added an additional ground of appeal. They have contended that the Learned AAR has erred in holding that the appellant is liable to pay IGST on iron ore imported into India in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Section 5(1) of the IGST Act, 2017. We find that though mentioned as additional ground', it is in fact in the nature of appeal against one part of Advance Ruling, which was not appealed against/disputed in their original appeal. 16. In this regard, it would be pertinent to reproduce the Section 100 of the CGST - Act, 2017;- SECTION 100. Appeal to Appellate Authority.- (1) The concerned officer, the jurisdictional officer or an applicant aggrieved by any advance ruling pronounced under sub-section (4) of section 98, may appe....