GST
TRT-2025-
Gujarat High Court
Date:-04-07-25
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:-
Order Date – 04 July 2025
Parties: Maxwell Engineering Solutions Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central GST and Excise
Facts –
- The Petitioner, Maxwell Engineering Solutions Private Limited, exported goods in November 2023 and claimed refund of IGST. The department denied refund on on the ground that the petitioner had availed the benefit of Notification No.79/2017-Customs dated 13.10.2017 resulting into violation of the Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules.
- During appeal, the petitioner submitted EPCG license and Bank Guarantee, showing only capital goods were imported, which are exempt from Rule 96(10). However, the appellate authority refused to consider these new documents, citing procedural limitations under Rule 112.
Issue –
- Whether refund of IGST on exports can be denied under Rule 96(10) for availing EPCG benefits, when the petitioner imports only capital goods?
Order –
- The Division Bench of Hon’ble High court observed that it appears that when the petitioner has not been called upon to submit the EPCG Certificate, Clauses (a) to (d) of the Rule 112(1) of the CGST Rules would not be applicable as neither the adjudicating authority has refused to admit the evidence, nor the petitioner was prevented from sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce, nor the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the adjudicating authority which is relevant to any ground of Appeal.
- The Clause (d) of the Rule 112(1) of the CGST Rules is also not applicable, as in the facts of the case, the petitioner after considering the order of rejection of adjudicating authority has placed on record the EPCG Certificate along with the Bank Guarantee required under the said Scheme for import of the capital goods to avail the benefit of the Notification No.79/2017 and therefore, there is no violation of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules by the petitioner.
- In such circumstances, the Appellate Authority ought to have considered the additional evidence placed on record by the petitioner to verify as to whether the EPCG Certificate produced by the petitioner would entitle the petitioner to claim the refund or not, as import of the capital goods availing the benefit of Notification No.79/2017 has been excluded from purview of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules.
- Hence the impugned order is set aside and the Appellate Authority is directed to consider the additional evidence produced by the petitioner and to pass a fresh de-novo order.
Download Case Law
