TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 502
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... primarily on the ground that the rejection of refund claims by respondent No. 3 in terms of the impugned orders dated 1st April, 2022 and 20th June, 2022 respectively are in violation of notification dated 05.10.2017 (supra) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion. 2. Prior to the rolling out of GST regime on 01 July, 2017, the petitioner was entitled to refund of excise duty in terms of excise Exemption Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. dated 14.11.2002 and Excise Notification No. 1/2010-C.E. dated 06.02.2010. Both these excise exemption notifications came to be rescinded vide notification No.21/2017-C.E. dated 18.07.2017. 3. As a measure of goodwill and to provide financial support to the industrial units, which were availing the benefit of excise exemption/refund under the superseded excise Exemption Notifications, the Government of India took a policy decision to provide budgetary support to the existing eligible manufacturing units operating, inter alia, in the then State of Jammu & Kashmir for residual period for which each of the units was eligible. The new Scheme was offered as a measure of goodwill ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioner. 7. Per contra, the stand of the official respondents, as divulged in the objections filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, is that the amount of budgetary support envisaged under the Scheme for specified goods manufactured by eligible units is to the extent of 58% of the CGST and 29% of IGST paid through debit in the cash ledger account maintained by the Unit in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Section 20 (i) of IGST Act, 2017, after utilization of the input tax credit of the central tax and integrated tax. It is not disputed that the petitioner-Unit had applied for refund for the above indicated period on account of budgetary support scheme promulgated in terms of notification dated 05.10.2017. The amount, which was found due to the petitioner was sanctioned by the respondents and the claim of excess amount was rejected on the ground that it was not supported by the budgetary support scheme. The manner in which the calculations were made to work out the refund due to the petitioner is, however, not indicated in the objections. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redit of Central tax and Integrated tax and balance of liability, if any, shall be paid in cash and where this condition is not fulfilled, the reimbursement sanctioning officer shall reduce the amount of budgetary support payable to the extent credit of Central tax and integrated tax, is not utilized for payment of tax. 5.2 The above 58% has been fixed taking into consideration that at present Central Government devolves 42% of the taxes on goods and services to the States as per the recommendation of the 14th Finance Commission. 5.3 Notwithstanding, the rescinding of the exemption notifications listed under para 2 above, the limitations, conditions and prohibitions under the respective notifications issued by Department of Revenue as they existed immediately before 01.07.2017 would continue to be applicable under this scheme. However, the provisions relating to facility of determination of special rate under the respective exemption notifications would not apply under this scheme. 5.4 Budgetary support under this scheme shall be worked out on quarterly basis for which claims shall be filed on a quarterly basis namely for January to March, April to June, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the value addition shown in column (4) of the table below, the unit may be taken up for verification of the value addition: Serial No. Chapter Description of goods Rate (%) Description of inputs for manufacture of goods in column (3) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1. 17 or 35 Modified Starch or glucose 75 Maize, maize starch or tapioca starch 2. 18 Cocoa butter or powder 75 Cocoa beans 3. 25 Cement 75 Lime stone and gypsum 4. 25 Cement clinker 75 Lime stone 5. 29 All goods 29 Any goods 6. 29 or 38 Fatty acids or glycerin 75 Crude palm kernel, coconut, mustard or repeseed oil 7. 30 All goods 56 Any goods 8. 33 All goods 56 Any goods 9. 34 All goods 38 Any goods 10. 38 All goods 34 Any goods 11. 39 All goods 26 Any goods 12. 40 Tyres, tubes and flaps 41 Any goods 13. 72 Ferro alloys, namely, ferro chrome, ferro manganese or silico manganese 75 Chrone ore or manganese ore 14. 72 or 73 All goods 39 Any goods, other than iron ore 15. 72 or 73 Iron and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt in cash is paid after utilization of the input tax credit of central tax and integrated tax. iii) The CGST/IGST to be taken into account should be as paid on value addition prescribed in the rescinded exemption notifications. iv) That the refund claims on account of budgetary support under the notification dated 05.10.2017 shall not exceed the GST paid on value addition. 13. If we examine the refund claim submitted by the petitioner, which is partly rejected by respondent No. 3, in light of our understanding of the notification dated 05.10.2017, we find that for the period from July, 2021 to September, 2021, the amount of total GST paid by the petitioner was Rs. 13,55,852/-. After utilizing the input credit, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 2,64,364/- by debit to the cash ledger. 14. As per the budgetary scheme, the amount which would be payable to the petitioner on account of budgetary support would be 58% of the amount of CGST paid in cash, which would come to Rs. 1,53,331/-. 15. In the instant case, the CGST on value addition is more than the refund claimed. In view of the aforesaid, we see no error or mistake committed by the petitioner claimin....