These Four appeals have been filed before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, by M/s Mega Jewels Pvt. Ltd., F-57, EP1P, Sitapura Industrial area, Jaipur( Here in after also referred to as “the appellant”) against the Orders in Original (Here in after called as the “impugned orders”) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Division-F, Jaipur(Here in after called as the “adjudication authority”) as mentioned below:-

2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

2.1 The appellant having GSTIN No.08AADCM6287B1ZG is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant) are engaged in export of Jewellery from its registered office situated at Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur has filed applications for refund in respect of ITC accumulated on account of export of goods & services without payment of integrated tax against, filing the Letter of Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as LUT) for the month of July 2017, August, 2017, September, 2017 and October, 2017. The refund claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority on the grounds that the appellant did not follow the procedure prescribed in the CBEC circular No. 24/242017-GST dated 21.12.2017.

3. Being aggrieved with the impugned orders mentioned in column No.3 of above Para-1, the appellant has filed these appeals on the ground that the adjudicating authority has passed the impugned orders are against the law and deserves to be set aside.

4. Personal Hearing in all these matters was held on 09.01.2019 wherein Shri Yashasvi Sharma, C.A. & Authorized Representative of the, appellant appeared on behalf of the appellant. He explained the case in details and reiterated the submissions made in grounds of appeals. At the time of personal hearing he has also submitted the additional written submission dated 09.01.2019 & requested to decide the case. The appellant has contested the impugned orders mainly on the following grounds which are summarized as under:-

4.1 The adjudicating authority has denied the refund application on the basis of sole ground that the conditions of Circular No. 14/2017 were not complied with. The Circular which was taken as the sole base of rejection of the refund applications, is not applicable on them being an Export Oriented Unit(EOU) and they procured the goods from Domestic Tariff Area (hereinafter DTA) from registered dealers after payment of applicable taxes at normal rate. The Circular prescribes the procedure and the conditions which are to be complied with to get the benefit of deemed export under Section 147 of the GST Act, 2017 which is not the matter involved in the instant matter.

5. I have carefully gone through the case records and submissions made in the appeal memorandum as well as written submission submitted at the time of personal hearing on dated 09.01.2019. The adjudicating authority has rejected all the refund claims filed by the appellant and held that the appellant was required to give prior intimation in a prescribed proforma in Form A bearing running number containing the goods to be procured, as pre-approved by the Development Commissioner and details of the supplier before such deemed export/supplies. The question of deemed export arises as the appellant is 100% EOU and supply received by them is deemed export, therefore, they had to comply with provisions of circular No.14/14/2017-GST dated 06.11.2017 and other provisions at the time being enforce. The appellant themselves also has accepted that procedure for claiming has been lapsed, however argued that there is no trade notice regarding such type of exports. The deemed export refer to supplies of goods manufactured in India (and not Services) which are notified as deemed export under Section 147 of the CGST Act,2017 and recipient EOU shall have to follow procedure as per circular No.14/14/2017-GST. The adjudicating authority has also held that moreover, as per Para 4.0 of circular No. 24/24/2017-GST dated 21.12.2017, the appellant have also not furnished undertaking by the supplier of deemed export supplies that he shall not claim of the refund in respect of such supplies, which was also to be submitted manually and the appellant had not submit the same with the refund claim. The appellant has contested that the Circular which was taken as the sole base of rejection of the refund application, is not applicable on them being the appellant an EOU and they procured goods from Domestic Tariff Area from the registered dealers after payment of applicable taxes at normal rate. The circular prescribes the procedure and the, conditions which are to be complied with to get the benefit of deemed export under Section 147 of the GST Act, 2017 which is not the matter involved in the instant matter.

6. Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) as amended vide Notification No. 47/2017-Central Tax, dated 18-10-2017 allow either the recipient or supplier of deemed export supplies to claim refund of tax paid thereon.

Certain supplies of goods have been notified as deemed export supplies vide Notification No.48/2017- Central Tax, dated 18.10.2017. Circular No.14/14/2017-GST, dated 06.11.2017, provides for the following procedure and safeguards in respect of supplies to EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP units:-

(i) The recipient EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP unit shall give prior intimation in a prescribed proforma in “Form-A” (appended herewith) bearing a running serial number containing the goods to be procured, as pre approved by the Development Commissioner and the details of the supplier before such deemed export supplies are made. The said intimation shall be given to –

(a) the registered supplier,.

(b) the jurisdictional GST officer in charge of such registered supplier; and

(c) its jurisdictional GST officer.

The registered supplier thereafter will supply goods under tax invoice to the recipient EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP unit.

(ii) On receipt of such supplies, the EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP unit shall endorse the tax invoice and send a copy of the endorsed tax invoice to –

(a) the registered supplier;

(b) the jurisdictional GST officer in charge of such registered supplier; and

(c) its jurisdictional GST officer.

(iv) The endorsed tax invoice will be considered as proof of deemed export supplies by the registered person to EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP unit.

(v) The recipient EOU/ENTPISTP/BTP unit shall maintain records of such deemed export supplies in digital form, based upon data elements contained in “Form-B” (appended herewith). The software for maintenance of digital records shall incorporate the feature of audit trail. While the data elements contained in the Form-B are mandatory, the recipient units will be free to add or continue with any additional data fields, as per their commercial requirements. All recipient units are required to enter data accurately and immediately upon the goods being received in, utilized by or removed from the said unit. The digital records should be kept updated, accurate, complete and available at the said unit at all times for verification by the proper officer, whenever required. A digital copy of Form-B containing transactions for the month, shall be provided to the jurisdictional GST officer, each month (by the 10th of month) in a CD or Pen drive, as convenient to the said unit.

3. The above procedure and safeguards are in addition to the terms and conditions to be adhered to by a EOU/ENTP/STP/BTP unit in terms of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-20 and the duty exemption notification being availed by such unit.

7. Further. vide Para-41 of Circular No.125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 it is also clarified that the procedure regarding procurement of supplies of goods from DTA by Export Oriented Unit (EOU) / Electronic Hardware Technology Park (EHTP) Unit/ Software Technology Park (STP) Unit/Bio- Technology Parks (BTP) Unit under deemed export as laid down in Circular No.14/14/2017- GST dated 06.11.2017 needs to be complied with.

8. Thus, in the above manner and according to legal position, the appellant was required to follow the procedure as prescribed under Circular No.14/14/2017-GST dated 06.11.2017 mandatorily. Since, the appellant has not followed the procedure under the said circular, they are not entitled for refund.

9. In view of the above legal provision and discussion and, findings, I hereby reject the appeals filed by the appellant and upheld the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority