9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 223 - AAR - GSTClassification of rice husk board manufactured comprising of natural fibre rice husk powder calcium carbonate recycling waste other processing aid as well as PVC resin wherein PVC acts only s a bonding agent - to be classified as wood and articles of wood under chapter 44 attract 12% rate of GST or not? - HELD THAT - The applicant has provided a copy of the test report dated 23.12.2024 which confirms the contents of the rice husk board as has already mentioned in the application. However we find that the entire submission the contents of the product etc. exactly resembles the ruling IN RE M/S. PAPAKA HERBS SPICES PRIVATE LTD. 2020 (2) TMI 32 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING TAMILNADU to the teeth. It is difficult to believe that this is a coincidence. Even otherwise it is found that the test report dated 23.12.2024 though from a NABL accredited laboratory contains a remark that All above parameters are not covered/not accredited under NABL Scope of Accreditation . The test parameters nowhere state the BIS followed for arriving at the test result. The applicant it is felt should have provided the test report from a Government recognised laboratory as listed in the annexure to CBIC circular No. 43/2017-Customs dated 16.11.2017. The applicant has not provided copies of either the brochure copies of purchase invoice of inputs copies of sales invoices etc. The application os not maintainable.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal question considered was whether the rice husk board manufactured by the applicant, comprising natural fibre (rice husk powder), calcium carbonate, recycling waste, other processing aids, and PVC resin (used as a bonding agent), should be classified as wood and articles of wood under Chapter 44 of the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) and attract a 12% rate of GST. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant legal framework and precedents: The applicant sought classification under Chapter 44, which pertains to wood and articles of wood, specifically under CTH 441193. The applicable GST rate was referenced as per serial no. 92 of notification No. 1/2017-CT(Rate). The classification under HSN is critical as it determines the applicable GST rate. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the manufacturing process and composition of the rice husk board. It considered the historical context of using ligno-cellulosic agricultural residues, such as rice husk, in manufacturing particle boards, as established by Indian Plywood Industries Research Institute (IPIRI) research from 1977. The Tribunal referenced BIS standards, which classify particle boards based on density and materials used. Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted the submission of a laboratory test report confirming the product's composition. However, it expressed concerns over the test report's credibility, as it was not from a government-recognized laboratory and did not specify the BIS standards used. The Tribunal also noted the lack of supporting documentation, such as brochures, purchase invoices, and sales invoices, which could have substantiated the applicant's claims. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the BIS standards to assess whether the rice husk board could be classified under Chapter 44. It examined the materials used and their alignment with the standards for particle boards. The Tribunal also considered previous rulings, noting similarities with a past case involving M/s. Papaka Herbs & Spices Ltd. Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's argument regarding the classification under Chapter 44 but found the evidence insufficient to support the claim. It highlighted the discrepancies in the test report and the absence of corroborative documentation as significant factors undermining the applicant's position. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the application was non-maintainable due to the lack of credible evidence and documentation supporting the classification claim under Chapter 44. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held the application to be non-maintainable, emphasizing the importance of credible evidence and proper documentation in classification matters. It underscored the necessity for test reports to be from recognized laboratories and to specify the standards used. The ruling highlighted the need for applicants to provide comprehensive documentation, including brochures and invoices, to substantiate their claims. The Tribunal's decision reflects a strict adherence to evidentiary standards and procedural requirements in advance ruling applications, reinforcing the principle that classification under HSN must be supported by substantial and credible evidence.
|
