Case Law Details
Bright Performance Nutrition Vs Commissioner of Customs-Mundra (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Introduction: The case of Bright Performance Nutrition versus the Commissioner of Customs-Mundra has sparked a debate over the appropriate IGST rate for nutrition/dietary supplements.
Detailed Analysis: The crux of the dispute lies in the classification of Bright Performance Nutrition’s goods under the IGST Notification No. 1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate). The appellant contends that the goods fall under Serial No. 453 and/or 23 of Schedule III, attracting an 18% IGST rate. Conversely, the Revenue argues for classification under Serial No. 9 of Schedule IV, warranting a 28% IGST rate.
Shri Pramod Kediya, representing the appellant, emphasizes that the goods don’t align with the specific items listed under Serial No. 9. He argues that Serial No. 453 and/or 23 are more apt classifications, considering the nature of the goods.
On the other hand, Shri Rajesh Nathan, representing the Revenue, supports the findings of the impugned order, asserting that the goods fall squarely under Serial No. 9 of Schedule IV.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
