The court observed that the refund of the input tax credit cannot be denied, merely because the petitioner has claimed duty drawback under the provisions of the Customs and Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 2017. It does not mean that the petitioner is not entitled to a refund under Section 16(3) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rules 89 and 96 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The court noted that there are two rates of duty drawback under Notification No.131/2016- Cus (N.T) dated October 31, 2016. Column No.4 in the Schedule to the Notification deals with the situation where the CENVAT facility has not been available. Column No.5 deals with the situation where the CENVAT facility has been made available. “As far as the goods falling under Customs Heading No. 8483-40-00 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 are concerned, the rate of duty for goods both covered under these two columns is only at 2%. Thus, there is no variation as far as the rate of duty is concerned. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner is entitled to duty drawback at 2% irrespective of the fact that whether the petitioner has availed input tax credit under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or under the provisions of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017,” the court said. The court, while allowing the petition, directed the department to scrutinise the refund ITC claims filed by the petitioner under Section 16(3) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 89 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and other applicable rules and refund the ITC together with applicable interest under the provisions of the respective enactments, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.