TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1415
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short 'CGST Act') against the Order-in-Appeal (in short OIA) No. 273/CGST/Kol North/2025, 274/CGST/Kol-North/2025 and 272/CGST/Kol-North/2025 all 30.04.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & CX, Kolkata Appeals I Commissionerate (in short 'the first Appellate Authority'). The said appeals have been filed before the first Appellate Authority by the present respondent i.e., M/s Amrit Crafts Private Limited under sub-section (1) of Section 107 of the CGST Act against the Order-in-Original bearing Ref Nos. ZD190125000769C dated 01.01.2025, ZD190225012640S dated 07.02.2025 and ZD190125000757H dated 01.01.2025, respectively passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, BBD Bag II Division, Kolkata North Commissionerate. 3. The respondent i.e., M/s Amrit Crafts Private Limited (19AAECA9154A2ZT) situated at 6th Floor, Room No. 605, I British Indian Street, Kolkata 700 069 is engaged in the business of scouring, dyeing and washing of grey fabric on job-work basis, strictly in accordance with the specifications provided by its principal manufacturers / buyers from time to time. Ordinarily, the grey fabric is suppli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3968q dated 11.03.2025 (pertaining to APL/37/KLK/20226) and AD1903250138731 dated 11.03.2025 (pertaining to APL/41/KLK/2026) . However, the first Appellate Authority has allowed the refund claims filed by the respondent and set aside the impugned orders vide Order-in-Appeal Nos. 273/CGST/Kol-North/2025, 274/CGST/Kol-North/2025 and 272/CGST/Kol-North/2025 all dated 30.04.2025 (in short 'the impugned OIAs') 6. The petitioner i.e., the Revenue, being aggrieved by the orders of the first Appellate Authority, filed the instant appeals before this Tribunal mainly on the following grounds: 6.1 The Revenue contended that the first Appellate Authority has allowed the appeals and directed the OAA to review the calculation which amounts to remanding the appeals, as per the provisions of law the first Appellate Authority has no power to remand back the case to the OAA in terms of Section 107(11) of the CGST Act, 2017. 7. We have heard the arguments of the petitioner on the point of admission. The petitioner is represented by Shri Shilananda Tigga, Superintendent, CGST who is authorized representative of the Revenue. The appeals were admitted and accordingly notice was issued to the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion for giving effect to the OIA. The Revenue has failed to demonstrate that the first Appellate Authority remanded or referred back the matter for fresh decision. The objection raised on relying on Section 107(11) of the CGST Act, 2017 is, therefore, misconceived and untenable. Section 107(11) of the CGST Act, 2017 prohibits a true remand of the case to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision. It does not prohibit the Appellate Authority issuing a direction in appeal and directing consequential computation or implementation. 8. We have heard the arguments of both the parties in detail. The same are not being discussed here as because the parties have advanced their arguments which have already been covered in the Grounds of Appeal. 8.1 With respect to the issue raised by the Revenue by relying on para 3.2 of the CBIC Circular No.135/05/2020- GST dated 31.03.2020 on the fact that both the inputs and output supplies are falling under same HSN. We have examined the said circular. The provisions of the said circular are applicable for the cases where there is reduction in GST rate. The same is mentioned in the heading of para 3 of the said circular. For brevity we reproduc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respondent is not entitled for the refund claim. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras have examined the Circular No. 135/5/2020 GST and have made their observation in the case of M/s Vindhya Spinning Mills Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Sivakasi Division, Thiruthangal, W.P.(MD) Nos. 16757 & 16758 of 2025, decided on 14.07.2026 [2026-VIL-731-MAD; Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:2893] and have clearly observed in paras 17 and 18 as below: "17. Thus, it can be seen that the statute does not make any distinction between major and minor components. It clearly provides that if there is a higher rate of tax on output supplies, the party is entitled to claim a refund of unutilised input tax credit. It is now well settled that the taxing statute has to be construed as such. The catena of decisions quoted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner lay down that the petitioner is entitled to the relief. In this case, though the rate of tax on cotton yarn is the same, with reference to the chemicals used, the packing and other materials used, there is a higher rate of tax on the output goods, and hence the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The neces....