9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly for some specific items which does not cover the goods of the present case. Therefore, the appellant s goods does not fall under Serial No. 9. Accordingly, the Serial No. 453 and/or 23 of Schedule III is the correct entry where the appellant s goods fall. Hence, the correct rate of IGST applied by the appellant i.e. 18% is correct and legal. The identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of NEUVERA WELLNESS VENTURES P. LTD. VERSUS C.C. MUNDRA [ 2023 (10) TMI 964 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] wherein it was 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 ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified under Tariff item 21069099 attracts IGST at the rate of 18 % under serial No. 453 and/or 23 of Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28-06-2017 as claimed by the appellant or the said goods is covered under serial No. 9 of Schedule IV of the said notification which provided for IGST at the rate of 28% as claimed by the Revenue. 2. Shri Pramoad Kediya, Learned Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that the entire case of the department is that the goods imported by the appellant, for the purpose of IGST is falling under Schedule IV Serial No. 9. It is his submission that the goods of the same chapter heading are partly covered under serial No. 453 and/or 23 of Schedule III which attracts 18% IGST and partly under serial No. 9 of schedule IV of Notification No. 1/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28-06-2007. 2.1 He submits that the goods mentioned in serial No. 9 are not general but some specific items for the reason that the entry appeared therein reads as food preparation not elsewhere specified or included i.e. Protein concentrates and Textured Protein Substances, etc. He submits that only the goods des ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r : Schedule Sl. No. Chepter/Heading/ Subheading/ Tariff Item Description of Goods Rate of IGST I 101 21069099 Sweetmeats 5% II 46 21069099 Namkeens, bhujia, mixture, chabena and similar edible preparations in ready for consumption form. 12% III 23 21069099 Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included i.e. Protein concentrates and textured protein substances, Sugar-syrups containing added flavouring or colouring matter, not elsewhere specified or included; lactose syrup; glucose syrup and malto dextrine syrup, Compound preparations for making non-alcoholic beverages, Food flavouring material, Churna for pan, Custard powder 18% IV 09 21069099 Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included i.e. Protein concentrates and textured protein substances, Sugar-syrups containing added flavouring or colouring matter, not elsewhere specified or included; lactose syrup; glucose syrup and malto dextrine syrup, Compound preparations for making non-alcoholic beverages, Food flavouring material, Churna for pan, Custard powder 28% 4.1 The Adjudicating Authority is of the opinion that the goods in question is not instant food mixes, hence not falling under Serial No. 23 of Schedule II ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wer authorities have denied the exemption under entry No. 453 of Schedule IV of Notification No. 1/2017-IGST-Rate. Accordingly the IGST will attract @ 28% instead of 18%. For better understanding of the exact entry of both the Notification as claimed by the appellant as well as contended by the Revenue are reproduced below: 1) In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (13 of 2017), the Central Government, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby notifies the rate of the integrated tax of- (i) 5 per cent. in respect of goods specified in Schedule I, (ii) 12 per cent. in respect of goods specified in Schedule II, (iii) 18 per cent. in respect of goods specified in Schedule III, (iv) 28 per cent. in respect of goods specified in Schedule IV, (v) 3 per cent. in respect of goods specified in Schedule V, and (vi) 0.25 per cent. in respect of goods specified in Schedule VI appended to this notification (hereinafter referred to as the said Schedules), that shall be levied on inter-State supplies of goods, the description of which is specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Schedules, fal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Serial No. 9 of Schedule IV, whereas it will be covered by Serial No. 453 of Schedule III of Notification 1/2017-IGST-Rate. For a better understanding, it is necessary to read the entire tariff entry of 2106 which is given below: From the above tariff entry, 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%. As regard, the misinterpretation made by both the lower authorities on the word i.e. , the appellant have relied upon the judgment in the case of Castrol India Limited (supra) wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court dealing with the meaning of that is to say held as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atisfied. That being so, majority view contained in the order of the CEGAT is not sustainable and is set aside. The minority view as expressed is confirmed. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs. From the above decision, we are of the view that as explained in the above decision 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 (supra) 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. 6. As regard the submission of the learned Counsel on the demand being time barred, we find that there is no dispute that the physical assessment of bill of entry was made by the proper custom officer and the appellant have declared the goods correctly as per the documents and claimed the exemption of IGST rate in terms of Serial No. 23 and 453 of Schedule III of Notification 1/2017. Had the officer of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
