|
2022-TIOL-07-AAAR-GST
Jayant Food Products
GST - AAR had held that goods viz. "Papad" cannot be termed as "Fryums" hence applicant's goods is to be classified under CTH No. 2106 and not under CTH No. 1905 of Custom tariff Act, 1975 - That Papad attracts GST @ 18% (CGST 9% + GGST 9% or IGST 18%) as per Sl. No. 23 of Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017 -Central Tax (Rate) - Appeal filed before AAAR. Held: C lassification of goods under GST regime has to be done in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which, in turn, is based on Harmonised System of Nomenclature, popularly known as ‘HSN' - The rules of interpretation, section notes and chapter notes as specified under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 are also applicable for classification of Goods under GST regime - However, once an item is classified in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the rate of tax applicable would be arrived at on the basis of notifications issued under GST by respective governments - From the ingredient of the product in question as submitted by the appellant, it is seen that the impugned product are manufactured from wheat flour, superfine wheat flour, rice flour, starch, corn flour, cereal flour and all these products are covered under Chapter 10 and 11 of Customs Tariff Act - The said product can be categorized as crispy savoury food product as such it is made from the dough based on flour like wheat flour, rice flour, starch, corn flour and cereal flour, therefore, the products of the appellant fall under the Chapter Heading 1905 - However, the question still remains whether the products of the appellant can be termed as ‘Papad' - The product ‘Papad' is an eatable item, originated and mainly consumed in India, therefore, there is no mention of the product ‘Papad' in the Explanatory Notes of the HSN - The term ‘Papad' has neither been defined in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 nor under the CGST Act, 2017 or the Notifications issued thereunder - F or determination of the correct classification of any product, ingredient used in the manufacture of the said product is a decisive factor - The main ingredients of the appellant's product are flour, like wheat flour, rice flour, starch, corn flour and cereal flour and in the Ch. 19 of the Custom tariff Act 1975, all the product which are made of either directly from the cereals of chapter 10, from the products of chapter 11 or from food flour are covered - In the matters of classification of goods under taxation statutes, all the judicial forums, including the Apex Court, have stressed upon the importance of the identity of the goods in common parlance and there is a plethora of case laws which hold that for classification of goods under statutes for taxation of commercial supplies thereof, the primary test is their identity in the market, or in other words, their common parlance in the market - "Fryums" is brand name of a company and not the generic name of the impugned product, therefore, it would not be logical to hold that the appellant's product is "Fryums" - However, in general public, "Fryums" is popular word for different shapes and sizes like round, square, semi-circle, hollow circle with bars in between or square with bars in between intersecting each other or shape of any instrument, equipment, vehicle, aircraft, animal type Papad - Similarly, calling product in question of different shapes and sizes by Fryums does not change the basic character of the product and the product in question remains papad - Traditionally PAPAD is round shaped but the PAPAD is ready to cook product and can be consumed after roasting or frying in oil and consumed as snacks with the Indian meal or soup - Similarly, the product in question of different shapes and sizes is a ready to cook product and can be consumed after roasting or frying in oil and consumed as snack - Further, cereal flour of Chapter 10 and 11 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 are the ingredients of both the products - Both the products i.e. "PAPAD" and product in question are same except they are known by different name in general public i.e. as "PAPAD" and "Fryums" - When ingredients and process are similar in case of PAPAD and impugned product, then the product in question is nothing but a kind of PAPAD irrespective of their shape and sizes - Products under consideration become crispy when these products are fried or roasted - The products of the appellant has found its use as an alternative to regular round shaped Papad or as an additional variety of Papad in the Indian meal, especially the meals served during the community functions - The caterers, who prepare the meals for the community functions, as well as the people in general, consider such products as a different type or variety of Papad only - Therefore, AAAR is of the view that applicant's products of different shapes and sizes of papad, whose pictures are reproduced, are nothing but Papad, classifiable under Tariff Item 1905 90 40 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - I n entry No. 96 of Notification No. 02/2017 -CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, the description of the product is "PAPAD, by whatever name called" - To understand the term "whatever name called" the principle of "Noscitur a sociis" is to be applied - As per the said principle, the meaning of an unclear word or phrase must be determined by the words that surround it - In other terms, the meaning of a word must be judged by the company that it keeps - Therefore, in this entry, only a product called by name of PAPAD would not be the only one covered but all types of product which are similar to PAPAD in respect of ingredient, manufacturing process, use and common parlance would be covered irrespective of their shape and size and even name - As such, the appellant's product is similar to the traditional round shaped Papad in all respects, therefore, AAAR is of the view that the impugned product i.e. different shapes and sizes of papad is eligible to be covered under entry No. 96 of Notification No. 02/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - Rule of interpretation for classification is that when a product is eligible to be classified under specific entry then classification under general entry should not be preferred, therefore, as per rule of interpretation, the product is to be classified under CTH No. 1905 9040 only and not under CTH No. 2106 9099 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as classified by the GAAR - Held, therefore, that product ‘different shapes and sizes Papad' involved in the present case merit classification under Tariff heading No. 19059040 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; said CTH No. 1905 is covered under entry No. 96 of Notification No. 02/2017 -CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and accordingly chargeable to NIL rate of Goods and Services Tax - AAR ruling modified - Appeal allowed: AAAR
- Appeal allowed: AAAR
2022-TIOL-06-AAAR-GST
Temple Packaging Pvt Ltd GST - AAR had held that Printing of Pamphlet/leaflet falls under the category of supply of service falling under SAC No. 9989 - Appeal filed.
Held: Supply made by the appellant consists of the supply of paper i.e. goods as well as the service of printing of the content/instruction provided by the client - Supply made by the applicant is, therefore, a composite supply and the same has also been accepted by the appellant in their grounds of appeal - A s per Section 8(a) the taxability in the case of composite supply comprising two or more supplies, one of which is a principal supply, shall be treated as a supply of such principal supply - CBIC vide Circular No. 11/11/2017-GST dated 20.10.2017 has clarified on the taxability of printing contracts - Buyers of the medicine are not interested in the piece of paper but the instructions mentioned - It would be fair to say that the client of the appellant would never accept the leaflet if the content as provided by them is not properly and correctly printed - Dominance is of the printing of content/instruction - Appellant is rightly covered under para 4 of the Circular dated 20.10.2017 meaning thereby that the supply would be a supply of service falling under heading 9989 of the scheme of the classification of services - Citations produced by the appellant are from the Central Excise regime where there was no concrete concept of bundled supply, composite supply and mixed supply of goods and/or services or both - Such concept for taxation purpose has come up only during the GST regime and there cannot be any comparison between two tax regimes as the concept of taxability has completely changed under GST - Appellant has put forth practical difficulties while discharging their legal obligation under EPCG/Advance license scheme or under supplies to SEZ and their inability to clam refund under the category of deemed export - Such arguments do not have any bearing on the order impugned - Classification of goods or services cannot be made merely on the ground that classifying their supply in a particular manner will deprive them from other benefit - No infirmity in the ruling of the Advance Ruling Authority - Hence appeal dismissed: AAAR
-Appeal dismissed : AAAR
2022-TIOL-32-AAR-GST
Rama Devi Guttikonda GST - Products have therapeutic or prophylactic uses such as treatment of fungal infection, muscle relaxing for prostane, treatment of nausea, Parkinsons, depression, gastro esophageal reflex disease, hay fever, pain and fever, strokes, joint stiffness, inflammation, headache and high blood sugar - Therefore, the pharmaceutical Pellets and Granules (except Orlistat pellet) manufactured by the applicant can be classified as medicaments under Sl.No.62 of Schedule II of the Notification No. 1/2017-CTR and subject to GST @12%: AAR
GST - Insofar as product by name Orlistat is concerned, the use is given as weight loss and not treatment of any disease - Obesity is not a disease and hence reduction of weight cannot be seen as a treatment against a disease - Therefore, Orlistat cannot be classified as a medicament; attracts GST @18%: AAR
- Application disposed of :AAR
2022-TIOL-313-HC-P&H-GST
Yogender Yadav Vs UoI
GST - The bail applicant was working, as a chartered accountant with proprietorship concerns - It is a matter of evidence whether the bail applicant has scribed either the invoices concerned, or the statements of accounts concerned, or has loaded them on, to the electronic devices concerned - Court cannot at this stage, determine the validity of incriminatory role as scribed to bail petitioner by prosecution - Nonetheless, since irrespective of investigations with respect to afore being still underway, and, also evidence in respect thereof, being yet not collected by Inspector concerned, yet given the gravity of his purported incriminatory role, he cannot be admitted to bail unless certain conditions are imposed, upon him - The imposition of conditions would ensure that he does not flee from justice, and/or, tamper with prosecution evidence, and, besides also does not influence the prosecution witnesses concerned - Petitioner is ready and willing for imposition upon him, the condition that he will give his ancestral house as personal surety, before trial Judge concerned - Consequently, subject to said conditions being complied with by petitioner, bail applicant is ordered to be released from judicial custody: HC
- Petition allowed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT |
|
