2023 (4) TMI 416 - HC - Customs

Classification of goods proposed to be imported - Scented Flavoured and Sweetened Supari - to be classified under sub- heading 080280 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 or under Chapter 21 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act 1975? - validity of Circular No.163/2019/2021-GST - HELD THAT - This Court is not called upon to examine the validity of the said circular. The decision of the learned CAAR as well as the decision of this Court in M/S. GREAT NUTS IMPEX PVT. LTD. M/S. THE NUTS CO. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS DELHI ORS. 2023 (3) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT is rested on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in CRANE BETEL NUT POWDER WORKS VERSUS COMMR. OF CUS. C. EX. TIRUPATHI 2007 (3) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT . The CAAR had not accepted that the clarification issued by the Circular No.163/2019/2021-GST dated 06.10.2021 would be material in determining the question. The learned CAAR has also not been persuaded to accept a different view from that of the Supreme Court on the basis of the clarification issued in terms of the aforementioned circular - Learned CAAR has noted that the said circular does not provide any reasons for such clarification. There are no infirmity with the decision of the learned CAAR - it is not required to examine the validity of the clarificatory circular issued by the respondent - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The classification of "Scented & Flavoured and Sweetened Supari" under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the applicability of a circular issued by the Government of India regarding GST rates.

Classification Issue:
The appellant challenged the classification of the product under sub-heading 080280 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, arguing it should be classified under sub-heading 21069030 of Chapter 21. The appellant referred to a circular clarifying that "Scented Sweet Supari" falls under tariff item 21069030 as "Betel Nut product" attracting an 18% GST rate.

Legal Interpretation:
The Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR) and the High Court relied on a Supreme Court decision to uphold the classification under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The CAAR did not find the circular material in determining the classification issue. The court noted that the circular lacked reasons for the clarification provided.

Judicial Decision:
The High Court found no fault with the CAAR's decision and stated that they were not required to assess the validity of the circular. The appeal was disposed of in accordance with the classification under sub-heading 080280 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.