9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 34 - AAR - GSTSeeking rectification in original ruling - error apparent on the face of record or not - Whether Epoxidised Soyabean Oil can be classified under tariff item 1518 of Schedule-I (taxable at 5 %) or Schedule-II(taxable at 12 %) of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017, as amended from time to time? - HELD THAT - After the perusal of the original order the mistake pointed out by the applicant if found correct. As the mistake is typological error and apparent on the record the mistake is hence by being rectified and the correct GST No. 23AAACD5735C1Z7 is being mentioned in first page of the order. It was also seen that while mentioning the Order No. instead or the order No. as 04/2021 by mistake it was mentioned 04/2020. Hence. this typological error is being rectified and thus in place of order no. 04/2020 the order No. is now being mentioned 04/2021 - The original ruling is rectified.
Issues:
Classification of Epoxidised Soyabean Oil under tariff items 1518 of Schedule-I or Schedule-II of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate). Analysis: The application was filed under section 97 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 and MP Goods and Services Act, 2017 by a company engaged in the manufacture of Epoxidised Soyabean Oil. The main question raised was the classification of this product under the GST tariff. The original ruling classified the product under tariff item 1518, making it taxable at 5%. The ruling was considered valid subject to specific provisions of the GST Act unless declared void. The applicant later sought rectification of the original order due to a typographical error in the GSTN number mentioned in the order. The error was acknowledged, and the correct GST number was rectified in the order. Additionally, another typographical error in mentioning the order number as 04/2020 instead of 04/2021 was rectified. These rectifications were made while ensuring that the rest of the ruling remained unchanged from the original decision.
|
