In case the refund is filed by the recipient of deemed export supplies, an undertaking by the supplier of deemed export supplies that he shall not claim the refund in respect of such supplies is also required to be furnished manually. therefore the contention of the appellant is not acceptable.
Refund— In the instant case, appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit engaged in business of manufacturing and exporting of Jewellery from its registered office has filed application for refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 of Rs. 5,79,552/- for the period November, 2017 in respect of ITC accumulated on account of export of goods & services without payment of Integrated Tax against filing the Letter of Undertaking.
The refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the grounds that the appellant has not followed the procedure for procurement of goods from DTA units.
The appellant contested that the condition of furnishing undertaking has been specified only in case when the supplier of the deemed export intends to file refund claim.
Held that— in case the refund is filed by the recipient of deemed export supplies, an undertaking by the supplier of deemed export supplies that he shall not claim the refund in respect of such supplies is also required to be furnished manually. Thus, the undertaking in both the case is to be furnished mandatorily, therefore the contention of the appellant is not acceptable.
Thus, the appellant was required to follow the procedure as prescribed but they failed to do so. The case laws cited by the appellant in their defence is squarely not applicable in the instant case.
In case the refund is filed by the recipient of deemed export supplies, an undertaking by the supplier of deemed export supplies that he shall not claim the refund in respect of such supplies is also required to be furnished manually. therefore the contention of the appellant is not acceptable.
Refund— In the instant case, appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit engaged in business of manufacturing and exporting of Jewellery from its registered office has filed application for refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 of Rs. 5,79,552/- for the period November, 2017 in respect of ITC accumulated on account of export of goods & services without payment of Integrated Tax against filing the Letter of Undertaking.
The refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the grounds that the appellant has not followed the procedure for procurement of goods from DTA units.
The appellant contested that the condition of furnishing undertaking has been specified only in case when the supplier of the deemed export intends to file refund claim.
Held that— in case the refund is filed by the recipient of deemed export supplies, an undertaking by the supplier of deemed export supplies that he shall not claim the refund in respect of such supplies is also required to be furnished manually. Thus, the undertaking in both the case is to be furnished mandatorily, therefore the contention of the appellant is not acceptable.
Thus, the appellant was required to follow the procedure as prescribed but they failed to do so. The case laws cited by the appellant in their defence is squarely not applicable in the instant case.