The AAR held that medicated toilet soap cannot claim the 5% GST rate meant for ordinary toilet soap, as its therapeutic nature places it under a separate tariff entry attracting 18% GST.
The ruling refused to admit the application, noting that the pure agent issue on electricity reimbursement had already been decided during audit. Advance ruling was barred under Section 98(2) once the matter stood concluded.
The issue before the Authority was the classification of evaporators and condensers. It held that heat exchangers imported separately are classifiable as parts, but follow the main unit’s classification when imported together in CKD/SKD condition.
The ruling examined whether a liquid embolic system qualifies as a medicament. It held that since the product acts mechanically by occluding vessels, classification under medicament heading was not applicable.
The CAAR Delhi examined whether annuloplasty rings qualify as artificial body parts. It ruled that since the device only supports an existing heart valve annulus and does not replace anatomy, classification lies under the residual medical implant category.
The Kerala AAR held that while ITC on purchase of used vehicles is barred under the margin scheme, credit on repairs, refurbishment, and other business expenses remains admissible.
The ruling examined whether GST applies to centage charges collected for PMC services rendered to Government and local authorities. It held that such consultancy services qualify as pure services linked to constitutional functions and are exempt from GST, subject to conditions.
The Authority held that treatment of psoriasis, dermatitis, fungal infections, and similar conditions constitutes healthcare services by a clinical establishment and is exempt from GST under the relevant notification.
The Authority examined whether imported electrical racks should be treated as static converters or distribution cabinets. It ruled that their principal function is electricity distribution, classifying them under CTH 8537 10 90. The key takeaway is that ancillary UPS functions do not alter primary classification.
The issue was whether inverter components used in electric vehicles could be treated as motor vehicle parts. CAAR ruled that electrical machinery is excluded from Chapter 87, confirming classification under Chapter 85.
