TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case in the first OIO are that the appellant had initially imported Saccharin Sodium Powder (Syncal S) on payment of import duties. The department pointed out that in terms of Notification No.02/2019-Customs (CVD) dt.30.08.2019, Saccharin in all its forms originating in or exported from People's Republic of China & imported into India is subject to CVD @ 20%, which was not considered while paying aggregate duties of customs. Thereafter, the appellant had paid CVD @ 20% and consequential differential IGST amounting to Rs.12,63,938/- was also paid vide manual TR-6 challan. Thereafter, the appellant has filed refund claim dt.18.06.2022 seeking refund of IGST paid manually vide 2 challans on the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions to grant refund claimed by appellant and upheld the OIOs passed by the original authorities. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed the present appeals before the Tribunal. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not a speaking order and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. The Adjudicating Authority has erred in placing technicalities over substantive benefit of refund. Having held that there is no proposition that indirect taxes are meant to be passed on as held by Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CCE, Hyderabad-III Vs M/s Grey Gold Cement's [2014 (34) STR 809 (AP)], the Adjudicating Authority ought to have seen that denial of refund results in IGST paid, wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itled for refund in cash. He relied on the following cases to support this contention:- a) M/s Rungta Mines Ltd Vs CCE, Bistupur, Jamshedpur [2022-TIOL-252- HC-Jharkhand-GST] b) M/s CAD Vision Engineers Pvt Ltd Vs CCT, Hyderabad [Final Order - A/30289/2024 dt.30.04.2024] c) M/s Cyient Ltd Vs CCT, Rangareddy-GST [Final Order - A/30291/2024 dt.31.07.2024] d) M/s JSW Cement Ltd Vs CCT, Tirupati-GST [Final Order - A/30345/2024 dt.31.07.2024] e) Saera Electric Auto Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST, Gurgaon-I [2020 (372) ELT 452 (Tri-Chand.)] f) M/s Mahaveer Metal Manufacturing Co. Vs CCE & CGST, Rajasthan [Final Order - 50591/2023 dt.03.05.2023] g) M/s Rani Plastic Pipe Industries [2020 (6) TMI 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....62, which covers such cases; that refund of duties paid in excess can only be claimed under Section 27; b) That ITC of IGST paid against import of goods is governed by the GST laws and therefore, Customs Officers are not the proper officers to entertain such refund claims; c) That refund of IGST by Customs Officers in respect of export consignments alone is expressly provided for in Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017, which is not the case here; d) That the payment of the IGST is not under protest and the said assessment is not disputed by the appellants and hence the assessment is finalised; e) That even if the goods were cleared on self- assessment, such selfassessment can be revised in accordance with law....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of export obligation, the same cannot be claimed as refund under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. 12. I further find that this issue is no longer res integra as this Bench in the case of M/s CAD Vision Engineers Pvt Ltd Vs CCT, Hyderabad [Final Order - A/30289/2024 dt.30.04.2024], inter alia, held that if the refund of credit is not admissible in cash under the existing law then section 142, per se, would not make them entitled for refund in cash. Thus, it is clear that merely because the appellants had paid the duty, it is not a vested right that they would be entitled for taking the credit. 13. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellants were not claiming refund by questioning vires of any provision of law, wh....