The goods on which credit is accumulated cannot be treated as Inputs and falls under the purview of inverted duty structure or otherwise'.
Refund— In the instant case, the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim of petitioner on the ground that the appellant has procured the Scientific and Technical Instruments, Apparatus, Equipment etc., from various suppliers on payment of 18% tax and supplies the same as such even without change of its packing to various research institutes on the payment of 5% tax by availing exemption Notification and part supplies were also made to other purchasers on full rate of tax i.e. 18%. The adjudicating authority has not treated the impugned goods as "Input" as defined under Section 2(59) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the purpose of refund claim under Inverted duty structure and rejected the refund claim.
The issue involved in the present case is that whether the goods on which credit is accumulated and refund is claimed can be treated, as 'Input and falls under the purview of inverted duty structure or otherwise'.
Held that— The goods procured are attracting the same rate as the appellant has also supplied the goods at the rate of 18% GST to other purchaser without availing the benefit of notification, therefore such goods can not be treated as Inputs and does not qualify the criteria prescribed under Inverted rated duty structure as provided under Section 54 (3) (ii) of CGST Act, 2017.
The goods on which credit is accumulated cannot be treated as Inputs and falls under the purview of inverted duty structure or otherwise'.
Refund— In the instant case, the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim of petitioner on the ground that the appellant has procured the Scientific and Technical Instruments, Apparatus, Equipment etc., from various suppliers on payment of 18% tax and supplies the same as such even without change of its packing to various research institutes on the payment of 5% tax by availing exemption Notification and part supplies were also made to other purchasers on full rate of tax i.e. 18%. The adjudicating authority has not treated the impugned goods as "Input" as defined under Section 2(59) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the purpose of refund claim under Inverted duty structure and rejected the refund claim.
The issue involved in the present case is that whether the goods on which credit is accumulated and refund is claimed can be treated, as 'Input and falls under the purview of inverted duty structure or otherwise'.
Held that— The goods procured are attracting the same rate as the appellant has also supplied the goods at the rate of 18% GST to other purchaser without availing the benefit of notification, therefore such goods can not be treated as Inputs and does not qualify the criteria prescribed under Inverted rated duty structure as provided under Section 54 (3) (ii) of CGST Act, 2017.