9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 1357 - AAAR - GSTScope of Advance Ruling application - classification of product Keer Kokil - tobacco premixed with lime to be classified as unmanufactured tobacco without lime tube falling under Chapter 2401 or not - HELD THAT - In the instant case, this Authority finds that this appeal has been filed against the decision of the AAR. Rajasthan under Section 104 of the CGST Act, 2017. It is noted that no remedy lies before this authority against this decision. The revenue have also raised contentions against AAR, Rajasthan Ruling dated 01.06.2022. It is noted that no appeal was filed against the AAR Order dated 01.06.2022. The instant petition cannot be treated as an appeal by default; that will be time-barred too. It is noted that the instant appeal is not an appeal under Section 100 against the order passed under Section 98(4) or 98(5) of the CGST Act. 2017. Thus, it is outside the purview of the domain of this Authority. As a statutory authority with a specified statutory role, this authority cannot venture into any other area beyond what is prescribed in law . The instant appeal filed by CGST, Udaipur before AAAR against the letter dated 11.07.2023 issued by AAR - Rajasthan is not maintainable.
Issues Involved:
1. Misrepresentation of manufacturing process by the taxpayer. 2. Maintainability of the appeal under Section 100 of the CGST Act, 2017. 3. Allegations of fraud or suppression of material facts under Section 104 of the CGST Act, 2017. Summary: 1. Misrepresentation of Manufacturing Process by the Taxpayer: The taxpayer, M/s Gyankeer Tobacco Products Pvt Ltd (M/s GTPPL), initially declared a manual process for manufacturing "Keer Kokil" tobacco premixed with lime to classify it as "unmanufactured tobacco." However, during a search by CGST Udaipur, it was found that the taxpayer used machines and additional ingredients like "Nut Meg Aroma" and "Mentha Oil," which were not disclosed in their submission to the AAR. The quality control manager and directors admitted to using machines and additional ingredients, contrary to the process approved by the AAR. 2. Maintainability of the Appeal under Section 100 of the CGST Act, 2017: The appeal filed by the appellant against the AAR letter dated 11.07.2023 was challenged on the grounds of non-maintainability. The respondent argued that the appeal is not maintainable under Section 100 of the CGST Act, as it was filed against a letter under Section 104, not an advance ruling under Section 98(4). The appeal was also argued to be time-barred as it was filed after the lapse of the statutory period for appealing an advance ruling. 3. Allegations of Fraud or Suppression of Material Facts under Section 104 of the CGST Act, 2017: The appellant contended that the taxpayer misused the advance ruling by misrepresenting the manufacturing process and ingredients used. The CGST Udaipur's investigation revealed that the actual process involved machines and additional substances, which were not declared before the AAR. The CRCL report confirmed the presence of additional ingredients in the samples. The appellant argued that the ruling obtained by the taxpayer should be declared void ab-initio under Section 104 of the CGST Act due to fraud or suppression of material facts. Discussion and Findings: The authority noted that it has two roles under the CGST Act, 2017: to pronounce a ruling on an appeal under Section 100 against an order of the AAR under Section 98(4) or 98(5), and to declare any ruling void ab-initio under Section 104 if obtained by fraud or suppression of material facts. The appeal in question was filed against the AAR's decision under Section 104, which is not within the purview of this authority. The authority does not sit in judgment over orders of the AAR passed under Section 104. Order: The appeal filed by CGST, Udaipur against the letter dated 11.07.2023 issued by AAR, Rajasthan is not maintainable and is disposed of accordingly.
|
