9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 964 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported goods - Nutritional Supplements, which are preparations of substances such as Creatine, Nitrates, Glutamine and Amino Acids - classifiable under CTSH 2106 9099 or not - liable to IGST at 28% under Sr.No.9 of Schedule IV of Notification No.1/2017-IGST-Rate or at 18% under Sr. No.453 of Schedule III of the said Notification - demand barred by time limitation or not - suppression of facts or not. HELD THAT - From tariff entry of 2106, it can be seen that the entry covers various food preparation not elsewhere specified or included. However, out of the many items provided under tariff item 2106, the serial No. 9 described only some of those goods. This also establish that Serial No. 9 is not a general entry which covers entire entry of 2106 but only some of the goods which are specified in the description of goods are provided under serial no. 9 of Schedule IV,. This fact also strengthens the claim of the appellant that their goods are not covered under serial no. 9 of the schedule IV of Notification 1/2017-IGST-Rate and correctly falls under Serial No. 453 according to which the rate of IGST is 18%. From decision in CASTROL INDIA LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA-I 2005 (2) TMI 847 - SUPREME COURT , it is clear that the word that is to say is mutatis mutandis applies in respect of the expression i.e. in the present case. Accordingly, the word used i.e. at serial number 9 of schedule IV of Notification it is fixed, specific and clear that only the description given in such entry shall be covered by serial no. 9. Consequently the goods of the appellant will fall under Serial No. 453 of Schedule III of the Notification 1/2017-IGST, therefore, the demand of differential custom duty shall not sustain. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - In the present case for the clearance for the period July 2017 to November 2017, the show cause notice was issued on 09.07.2022 - since there was no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant, the demand is also hit by limitation. There are force in the submission of the learned counsel that whatever IGST needs to be paid by the appellant, it was available as an input tax credit to them, therefore, the present case is involved revenue neutrality. Accordingly, the malafide intention cannot be attributed to the act of the appellant. For this reason, the demand for the extended period is not sustainable also on time bar. The impugned order is not sustainable - Appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Classification of Nutritional Supplements for IGST rate determination 2. Jurisdiction and limitation of demand for differential IGST Classification of Nutritional Supplements for IGST rate determination: The appellant imported Nutritional Supplements classified under CTSH 2106 9099 and claimed exemption under Serial No. 453 of Notification No. 1/2017-IGST-Rate. The department contended that the products fell under Sr. No. 9 of Schedule IV of the Notification, attracting a higher IGST rate of 28%. The appellant argued that the products did not fall under Sr. No. 9 as they were not specifically listed. The Tribunal analyzed the entries and determined that the appellant's goods were correctly classified under Serial No. 453 of Schedule III, attracting an IGST rate of 18%. The interpretation of the term "i.e." was crucial in this determination, as it was held that only the items specified after "i.e." were covered under Sr. No. 9. Jurisdiction and limitation of demand for differential IGST: The appellant contended that the demand for the alleged differential IGST was time-barred as the Show Cause Notice was issued after the prescribed period and there was no suppression of facts. It was argued that the goods were cleared under the assessment of the Custom Officer, and the appellant had correctly declared and claimed the IGST exemption. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the demand was hit by limitation and that the IGST payable was available as input tax credit, resulting in revenue neutrality. Therefore, the demand for the extended period was deemed unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. *(Pronounced in the open court on 20.10.2023)*
|
