The Authority rejected classification of plastic sterile aprons and shoe covers under garment heading 6210. It held that the products are plastic articles and fall under specific entries in Chapter 39.
AAR held that sun-cured, graded, and butted tobacco leaves remain “tobacco leaves” under HSN 240110 and attract 5% GST. Minimal manual processes do not alter their essential character.
The AAR held that arbitration awards representing upward price revision under pre-GST contracts are taxable under GST. Compensation not linked to contractual price revision is not taxable.
CAAR Mumbai ruled that internally and externally threaded elbows, bends, tees, sleeves and crosses must be classified under specific tariff headings based on material composition. The Authority held that specific entries prevail over general or residuary classifications under the Customs Tariff Act.
CAAR Mumbai ruled that 176 customized aircraft components are classifiable under CTH 88073000 as Other parts of aeroplanes. The Authority held that the goods are exclusively designed for aircraft use and are not parts of general use under Section XVII Notes.
CAAR Mumbai refused to issue a fresh ruling on roasted areca nut classification, holding that the issue was already decided by the Madras High Court. The statutory bar under Section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act was applied.
The Appellate Authority held that it cannot condone delay beyond the 30-day extended period prescribed under Section 100(2) of the CGST Act. As the appeal was filed 250 days after communication of the AAR order, it was dismissed without examining merits.
The Authority ruled that medicines, consumables, and implants supplied to inpatients are inseparably linked to treatment and form a composite supply of healthcare services. As the principal supply is exempt, no GST is payable on such inpatient supplies.
Authority held that battery energy storage operations only store and return electricity and do not qualify as power generation. As a result, GST exemptions for electricity supply were denied and 18% tax was applied.
Without entering into classification or tax rate issues, the Authority held the application to be beyond its statutory scope. The ruling underscores strict limits on advance ruling jurisdiction.
