9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1014 - AAAR - GSTClassification of goods - rate of GST - articles, consisting of gold, diamond, precious stones like ruby, emerald, sapphire, pearls etc., wherein a watch movement is fitted - whether the above articles fall under entry 13 of Schedule V to Notification No. 1/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28/6/17 prescribing rate of 1.5% CGST and 1.5% SGST? - challenge to AAR decision - Held that - The Chapter Notes of Chapter 91 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as well as Explanatory Notes of Harmonised System of Nomenclature of Heading 9101 and 9102 covers watches with case wholly of precious metal or of metal clad with precious metal, or of the same materials combined with natural or cultured pearls, or precious or semi-precious stones (natural, synthetic or reconstructed). Wrist-watches, pocket-watches, fob-watches, watches for carrying in handbags, watches mounted in brooches, rings etc. are covered under Chapter 91 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - on the basis of relevant Chapter Notes of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Explanatory Notes of Harmonised System of Nomenclature, it is found that products supplied by the appellant are appropriately classifiable under Chapter Heading 9101 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Various arguments put forth by the appellant in their appeal are devoid of any merit and the advance ruling given by the GAAR does not suffer from any infirmity. The decision of AAR upheld.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of articles sold by the appellant under the appropriate heading of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 2. Application of Rule 3 of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 3. Relevance and applicability of previous judgments and orders under VAT and other tax laws. 4. Delay in filing the appeal and request for condonation of delay. Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Articles: The appellant, M/s. House of Marigold, is engaged in the supply of gold, diamond, and precious stone articles with an embedded watch movement. The appellant argued that these articles should fall under entry 13 of Schedule V to Notification No. 1/2017–Central Tax (Rate) dated 28/6/17, prescribing a 1.5% CGST and SGST rate. The GAAR ruled that the products are classifiable under Heading 9101, which relates to watches. The appellant contended that the articles are essentially jewelry, not watches, and should be classified under Heading 7113. However, the appellate authority upheld GAAR's classification under Heading 9101, citing Chapter Notes and Explanatory Notes of the Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN) that cover watches with cases wholly or partially made of precious metals or stones. 2. Application of Rule 3 of the General Rules for Interpretation: The appellant argued that if their articles could fall under both Heading 7113 and Heading 9101, Rule 3 of the General Rules for Interpretation should apply, favoring classification under Heading 7113. The GAAR, however, noted that Rule 1 and Rule 3 of the General Rules for Interpretation had already been considered, and the product was specifically covered under Heading 9101. The appellate authority agreed with GAAR's findings, stating that Rule 3(b) is only applicable if the preceding rules do not resolve the classification issue. 3. Relevance and Applicability of Previous Judgments: The appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Titan Industries Ltd. and a Determination Order under the Gujarat VAT Act in their own case. The GAAR observed that the classification schemes under the Gujarat VAT Act and the CGST Act are different, and previous judgments rendered in different contexts cannot be applied to the current case. The appellate authority concurred, emphasizing that the previous judgments were not relevant to the classification under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 4. Delay in Filing the Appeal: The appellant filed the appeal with a delay of 21 days, citing unawareness of the procedure and business engagements during the Diwali festival. The appellate authority condoned the delay, considering the GST regime's novelty and potential bona fide mistakes by registered persons. Conclusion: The appellate authority confirmed the GAAR's Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/2018/20 dated 10.10.2018, classifying the articles under Heading 9101 and rejected the appeal filed by House of Marigold. The authority found that the arguments put forth by the appellant lacked merit and that the advance ruling did not suffer from any infirmity.
|
