Allowed

Multiplex Corporation v. -Guwahati Commissionerate

CESTAT10 Aug 2026C/75882/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of IGST refund and imposition of penalty for non-filing of Shipping Bill during initial CGST implementation. Tribunal held lapse attributable to authorities as containers were sealed and inspected without objection. Set aside penalty and ordered refund with interest.

What did the court decide?

Penalty of Rs.1.00 Lakh set aside; refund of IGST paid along with interest granted within eight weeks.

Multiplex Corporation vs -Guwahati Commissionerate — GST and Indirect Tax | CESTAT (2026)

¶1

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA EASTERN ZONAL BENCH : KOLKATA

¶2

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.2

¶3

Customs Appeal No.75882 of 2021

¶4

[Virtual Mode of Hearing]

¶5

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.10/CUS(A)/GHY/2021 dated 13.08.2021 passed by Commissioner(Appeasl), CGST, Central Excise & Customs, Guwahati.)

¶6

M/s. Multiplex Corporation

¶7

(B-7, Sector-3, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201301.)

¶8

…Appellant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Commissioner of CGST, CX & Customs, Guwahati

¶11

…..Respondent

¶12

(1^st & 2^nd Floor, Kedar Road, Machhkowa, Guwahati-781001.)

¶13

APPEARANCE

¶14

Shri A.Bhatt, Advocate for the Appellant (s)

¶15

Shri S.Debnath, Authorized Representative for the Revenue

¶16

CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI R. MURALIDHAR, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

¶17

FINAL ORDER NO. 76058/2026

¶18

DATE OF HEARING : 06.08.2026 DATE OF DECISION : 10.08.2026

¶19

R. MURALIDHAR :

¶20

The Appellants have exported three consignments to Army Welfare Project Limited, Bhutan containing goods manufactured by them. The exports were carried out in July 2017 and August 2017. The appellants prepared their Invoice and also prepared Bhutan Invoice and exported the same. After the exports were completed, for the IGST paid by them, the appellants filed a refund claim of Rs.1,56,510/- on 06.02.2019. A Show Cause Notice was issued on 11.07.2019 seeking to know as to why the refund claim should not be rejected and why

¶21

¶22

Customs Appeal No.75882 of 2021

¶23

penalty should not be imposed on them for not following proper procedure.

¶24

After due process, the Adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim and imposed penalty on the appellant. On appeal, the Commissioner(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant. Therefore, the Appellant is before the Tribunal.

¶25

The Ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the CGST regime had come into force w.e.f. 01.07.2017. The new export procedures were not in proper place and the Appellant was not very clear about the procedure to be adopted for exporting the goods to Bhutan. Therefore, they have followed the same procedure whatever was specified for such exports to Bhutan prior to 30.06.2017. He submits that the goods were cleared under proper Tax Invoices showing the details of the overseas party, assessable value and IGST details. Apart from this, they have also prepared the Bhutan invoices giving all the details. The container has been sealed by the CGST officials at the factory premises of the Appellant. Subsequently, along with Bhutan invoices and Appellant’s invoices, the goods have been dispatched by land transport mode. The Revenue and Customs Check Post authorities have checked and passed the consignment for onward movement to Bhutan. Subsequently, the Import Declaration towards having received the goods at Bhutan has also been received. The Ld.Counsel submits that if all these documents are taken up together for consideration, it will be seen that the Appellant has made all efforts to fulfill the statutory conditions for exports to Bhutan. However, the lower authorities have taken a stand that since Shipping Bill was not prepared for such exports and the refund claim was rejected. The Appellant has also been imposed with a penalty of Rs.1.00 Lakh. He submits that the exports have taken place immediately after coming into effect of the CGST regime, when proper guidelines were not available for exports to Bhutan. Therefore, even if Shipping Bills were not filed by the

¶26

¶27

Customs Appeal No.75882 of 2021

¶28

Appellant, the same should be treated as a procedural lapse on the part of the Appellant. The actual exports and payment of IGST is not disputed. Considering these factual details, it is prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the Appeal may be allowed.

¶29

The Ld.AR for the Department reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. He submits that w.e.f. 01.07.2017, the procedure for exports to Bhutan has been modified. As per the revised procedure the exporters are required to file the Shipping Bill and the IGST gets refunded to them based on the entries made in the Shipping Bill. Therefore, he justifies the rejection of refund and imposing of penalty on the Appellant.

¶30

Heard both sides, perused the Appeal papers and documentary evidence placed before me.

¶31

I have gone through the tax invoices prepared by the Appellant, the Bhutan invoices prepared by them, details of the consignments being signed by the CGST officials and the details of import declaration from India certified by Bhutan authorities. The sample set in respect of one consignment is extracted below :-

¶32

¶33

Customs Appeal No.75882 of 2021

¶34

¶35

Customs Appeal No.75882 of 2021

¶36

¶37

Customs Appeal No.75882 of 2021

¶38

¶39

Customs Appeal No.75882 of 2021

¶40

¶41

Customs Appeal No.75882 of 2021

¶42

From the documents it is seen that the Tax Invoice has been certified by the Revenue at Customs Check Post, Gilepho, Bhutan. The Bhutan Invoice shows the details of the sealing of the container by the CGST Superintendent. After the goods have reached the importer, the Import Declaration for Imports from India is certified by the officials. A harmonious reading of the above documents would show that though the Appellant has not followed the new procedure prescribed requiring the exporter to file Shipping Bills, he has prepared all the requisite documents as per the earlier procedure. Neither the CGST official sealing the container nor the border Checkpost officials allowing the consignment to go out of India, have raised any objection towards nonfiling of Shipping Bills. If this procedure followed was not correct, the appellant should have been guided to follow the new correct procedure, which has not been done in this case. Therefore, the lapse, if any, the same is required to be equally attributed to the CGST and Customs officials also. This being the case, I do not find any reason as to why the lower authorities have imposed penalty of Rs.1.00 Lakh on the Appellant. Finding no justification whatsoever for this penalty, I set aside the same.

¶43

So far as the refund is concerned there is no dispute that the IGST has been paid by the Appellant as can be seen from the tax invoices. Even in the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal there is no dispute about any non-payment of IGST. The details of documentary evidence submitted by the appellant in respect of the three consignments is as per the following table :

¶44

¶45

Customs Appeal No.75882 of 2021

¶46

Date of
Date of
Examination
Examination
Tax Bhutan by the Bhutan
and sealing
Sl. Invoice Page Invoice Page Page officer of Page Import Page
endorsement
No No. & No. No. & No. No. Land No. Declaration No.
by the officer
Date Date Customs No. & Date
of CGST
Station,
Noida
Hatisar
GST/14 04/2017- 2017129
80-
1 dated 59 18 dated 14.07.2017 81 05.08.2017 81 dated 58
81
14.07.2017 14.07.2017 05.08.2017
GST/23 05/2017- 2017125
82-
2 dated 62 18 dated 19.07.2017 83 29.07.2017 83 dated 61
83
19.07.2017 19.07.2017 29.07.2017
GST/86 06/2017- 2017135
84-
3 dated 65 18 dated 14.08.2017 85 22.08.2017 85 dated 64
85
14.08.2017 14.08.2017 22.08.2017

¶47

In view of the foregoing discussions, the Appellant is eligible for refund of the IGST paid by them along with applicable interest. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and direct the Revenue to grant the refund of the IGST paid by the Appellant along with the applicant interest within 8(eight) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Appellant would be eligible for interest for the period from three months from the date of filing (06.02.2019) of the refund claim till the refund is paid by the adjudicating authority.

¶48

10. The Appeal stands allowed on the above terms.

¶49

(Order pronounced in the open court on 10.08.2026.)

¶50

Sd/ (R. MURALIDHAR) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

¶51

Multiplex Corporation v. -Guwahati Commissionerate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Multiplex Corporation v. -Guwahati Commissionerate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmi Agroils Private Limited vs Kandla Customs

Givuadan (india) Pvt. Ltd. vs the Principal Commissioner Customs Bangalore

Coromandel International Limited vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) - Vijayawada

Amna Akbarhusain Baigam vs C C - Hyderabad- Customs

Khurana Oleo Chemicals vs Commissioner of Customs Ludhiana

Khurana Oleo Chemicals vs Commissioner of Customs Ludhiana

Lucknow Prev vs Atul Gaur

Lucknow Prev vs Suresh Tewari