The grievance of the Petitioner is that though the dispute pertaining to levy of IGST on the repaired Goods re-imported into India has been decided in favour of the Petitioner, the Petitioner is still being compelled to clear Goods on payment of IGST, resulting in financial losses. This court directed the respondent authority to decide the representations preferred by the Petitioner in accordance with law, rules, and regulations.
IGST — Notification No. 45/2017-Cus. dated 30.06.2017 – The petitioner prayed for directions to respondent to implement the Final Order dated 02.11.2020 & Final Order dated 15.01.2021 passed by the Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi in respect of all the consignments of the repaired goods imported/to be imported by the Petitioner; for directions to the Respondent to take necessary actions to enable the Petitioner to clear the repaired goods, imported/to be imported into India, without payment of IGST, extending the benefit of exemption Notification No. 45/2017-Cus. dated 30.06.2017. The petitioner submitted that after implementation of GST, the Petitioner cleared the Goods re-imported into India by claiming exemptions under the said Notifications. The concerned Authorities allowed exemptions from levy of BCD but refused to do so with respect to IGST on the ground that IGST is leviable on fair cost of repairs and cost of insurance and freight in terms of Serial No. 2 of Notification No. 45/2017-Cus. The Petitioner challenged the orders before the Commissioner (Appeals), which were rejected vide common orders dated 30.04.2019 and 22.11.2019. And the same was allowed by the CESTAT holding that IGST was not leviable on Goods reimported into India. The Petitioner submitted that he is still being compelled to clear Goods on payment of IGST, resulting in financial losses. The court observed that the CESTAT has passed two orders in favour of the Petitioner clearly holding that the Petitioner is entitled to the Exemption under the Notification. The court further observed that in view of the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Government’s own Policies to reduce litigation, it is imperative that the Respondents keep in mind that if on similar facts or legal issues, decisions have already been rendered by the competent Courts or Tribunals, they must be followed by the Respondents in subsequent matters.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed the concerned Respondent Authority to decide the representations preferred by the Petitioner, in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government Policies and with due deference to the decisions rendered by the CESTAT, New Delhi dated 02.11.2020. The representations shall be disposed expeditiously.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that though the dispute pertaining to levy of IGST on the repaired Goods re-imported into India has been decided in favour of the Petitioner, the Petitioner is still being compelled to clear Goods on payment of IGST, resulting in financial losses. This court directed the respondent authority to decide the representations preferred by the Petitioner in accordance with law, rules, and regulations.
IGST — Notification No. 45/2017-Cus. dated 30.06.2017 – The petitioner prayed for directions to respondent to implement the Final Order dated 02.11.2020 & Final Order dated 15.01.2021 passed by the Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi in respect of all the consignments of the repaired goods imported/to be imported by the Petitioner; for directions to the Respondent to take necessary actions to enable the Petitioner to clear the repaired goods, imported/to be imported into India, without payment of IGST, extending the benefit of exemption Notification No. 45/2017-Cus. dated 30.06.2017. The petitioner submitted that after implementation of GST, the Petitioner cleared the Goods re-imported into India by claiming exemptions under the said Notifications. The concerned Authorities allowed exemptions from levy of BCD but refused to do so with respect to IGST on the ground that IGST is leviable on fair cost of repairs and cost of insurance and freight in terms of Serial No. 2 of Notification No. 45/2017-Cus. The Petitioner challenged the orders before the Commissioner (Appeals), which were rejected vide common orders dated 30.04.2019 and 22.11.2019. And the same was allowed by the CESTAT holding that IGST was not leviable on Goods reimported into India. The Petitioner submitted that he is still being compelled to clear Goods on payment of IGST, resulting in financial losses. The court observed that the CESTAT has passed two orders in favour of the Petitioner clearly holding that the Petitioner is entitled to the Exemption under the Notification. The court further observed that in view of the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Government’s own Policies to reduce litigation, it is imperative that the Respondents keep in mind that if on similar facts or legal issues, decisions have already been rendered by the competent Courts or Tribunals, they must be followed by the Respondents in subsequent matters.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed the concerned Respondent Authority to decide the representations preferred by the Petitioner, in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government Policies and with due deference to the decisions rendered by the CESTAT, New Delhi dated 02.11.2020. The representations shall be disposed expeditiously.