9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 478 - AAR - GSTMaintainability of application for Advance Ruling - Section 98 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - issue of classification of the subject goods. Held that - The application has been made with reference to classification dispute in respect of the subject goods and the similar issue of applicant is a matter of dispute in the various forums of the department under the earlier Central Excise and Customs regime as per details given by the jurisdictional officer in his submissions - the applicant himself, also, during the course of hearing before this authority has admitted and confirmed that their import consignments are being provisionally assessed under the Customs Act after coming into effect of GST for classification of subject goods which is the same issue that has been raised by them in this application before us. In view of admission by the applicant at the time of Personal Hearing that in the present GST regime also, their import consignments have been provisionally assessed for classification and accordingly, applicability Of Customs duty and IGST on the same, their application is liable for rejection as per proviso to section 98 (2) of the CGST Act and therefore cannot be entertained by this authority and is accordingly rejected. The subject application for advance ruling made by the applicant is rejected under the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Issues:
1. Classification of subject goods under Heading 2309 for exemption from CGST. 2. Classification of subject goods under Heading 2309 for exemption from IGST. 3. Classification of subject goods under Heading 2309 for exemption from SGST. 4. Appropriate classification and tax rate if not under Heading 2309. Analysis: Issue 1: The applicant sought a ruling on whether the goods they intended to supply should be classified under Heading 2309 for exemption from CGST. The applicant imported BIOFOS Monocalcium Phosphate for animal feed, claiming it falls under Heading 2309 and thus exempt from GST. The applicant argued that the goods enhance nutritional value for animals. The jurisdictional officer, however, contended that the goods should be classified under Chapter Heading 28.35, not 23.09, based on previous disputes and notifications. The officer opposed admitting the application due to ongoing disputes and pending litigations. Issue 2: Similar to the first issue, the applicant also sought a ruling on the classification of goods under Heading 2309 for exemption from IGST. The applicant's contention was that the goods should be exempt from IGST as they fall under Heading 2309. The departmental representative disagreed, citing past disputes and notifications classifying the goods differently under Chapter Heading 28.35. The representative recommended rejecting the application based on ongoing litigations. Issue 3: The applicant inquired about the classification of goods under Heading 2309 for exemption from SGST. The applicant's argument was based on the goods' usage as animal feed and their classification under Heading 2309. The jurisdictional officer, however, maintained that the goods should be classified under Chapter Heading 28.35, leading to ongoing disputes and pending litigations, suggesting the rejection of the application. Issue 4: In case the goods are not classified under Heading 2309, the applicant sought guidance on the appropriate classification and applicable tax rates for CGST, SGST, and IGST. The applicant's claim was based on the goods' intended use as animal feed and their classification under Heading 2309. However, the departmental representative argued for a different classification under Chapter Heading 28.35, emphasizing the existing disputes and litigations surrounding the classification issue. The Authority rejected the application under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, as the applicant's import consignments were already provisionally assessed for classification under the Customs Act in the GST regime. The rejection was based on the proviso that the application cannot be entertained if the question raised is already pending or decided in any proceedings, as confirmed during the hearing. The rejection was in line with the legal provisions, and the application was not admitted for an advance ruling.
|
