Case Law Details
In re Madhurya Chemicals (GST AAAR Maharashtra)
Q1. Whether the classification of ‘Shatarnrut Chyavan’ falling under TSH 2309 90 10 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as adopted to GST attracting ‘NIL’ rate (0%) of IGST, (0%) CGST + (0%) SGST) as per Sr. No. 102 of Notification No. 02/2017 – Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017 is correct or not?
Ans: While deciding the classification of product claimed as animal feed supplements, it may he necessary to ensure that the said animal feed supplements are ordinarily or commonly known to the trade as products for a specific use in animal feeding. HS Code 2309 would cover only such products, which in the form supplied, are capable of specific use as food supplement for animal and not capable of any general use. As it has been established that the impugned product Shatarnrut Chyavan’ is an animal feed having specific use, viz.- increasing the milk production of the cattle and increasing the immunity of the cattle to fight diseases, and the said impugned product is also known in the market as the cattle feed supplement only, therefore, the said impugned product would be classified as animal feed supplement, and accordingly would merit classification under the Chapter Heading 2309 and under the Tariff Item 2309 90 10, and would not attract any GST in terms of SI. No. 102 of the Notification No. 2/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28.06.2017.
Q2. Whether the goods falling under TSH 2309 90 10 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as adopted to GST can be treated as ‘waste of sugar manufacture, whether or not in the form of pellets under heading 2303’ attracting 5% of IGST (2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST) as per Schedule 1 (Sr. No. 104) of Notification No. 01/2017 -Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 or not?
Ans: As regard the second question posed by the Appellant, we agree with the conclusion drawn by the MAAR that the question does not fall within the purview of Section 97 (2) of the CGST Act. 201 7. The question is not in relation to supply of goods or services or both, being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the Appellant. The MAAR cannot decide whether a specific product can be said to be a waste of sugar manufacture as the said question is not within the scope of Section 97 of the CGST Act. 2017. Also, the Appellant has not given any rebuttal of the finding of the MAAR that the said question does not fall under Section 97 of the CGST Act. 2017.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
