Case Law Details
Gujarat Nippon International Pvt. Ltd Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had never claimed higher draw back. Mistakenly suffix ‘A’ was included instead of ‘B’ but the draw back claimed was the same as the custom component.
From the facts on record, it is evident that the Petitioner is claiming draw back of the custom component only for the goods exported by the Petitioner at the rates specified therein. The rates of draw back under column ‘A’ and ‘B’ for the product exported by the Petitioner is the same. The said fact is not disputed by the Respondents. It is only on technical ground that affixing suffix ‘A’ claim of the Petitioner is denied.
We also relied upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India1. The said judgment has been confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt. Ltd.2 The Apex Court by dismissing the SLP observed that Respondents had claimed an IGST refund only to the extent of custom component and saw no error in the finding of the High Court.
In view of the above, the Petitioner succeeds. Respondents shall sanction the refund towards IGST paid in respect of the goods exported i.e. supply made by shipping. Of course, in case, if there is no other impediment, statutory interest shall follow.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
