In re Hansaben Jayantibhai Patel (GST AAR Gujarat)
The applicant, registered under GST as Trishul Die and Engineering Works, is engaged in the manufacturing of Die and Mold Machines. The applicant imported a Fully Automatic mold cleaning machine with parts and accessories through the Customs House, Kolkata, via Bill of Entry dated 10 January 2023. IGST was paid at the rate of 5% on two machines listed under items 1 and 2 of the Bill of Entry and 12% on the third item. On 5 April 2024, the applicant received a pre-consultation letter under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 from the Additional Commissioner of Customs, stating that IGST at 18% was applicable on the two machines under CTH 8437, and providing the differential IGST payable. The differential IGST payable amounted to ₹27,14,559, with the difference attributed to the incorrect claim of benefit under Sl. No. 257 of Schedule I to IGST Notification No. 01/2017, which applied only to assistive devices and rehabilitation aids for disabled persons listed in List 3, whereas the imported goods did not fall under that category.
The Customs department stated that the imported goods were more appropriately classifiable under Sl. No. 329A of Schedule III of the same notification, attracting 18% IGST as “machines for cleaning, sorting or grading seed, grain or dried leguminous vegetables; machinery used in milling industry or for working cereals or dried leguminous vegetables other than farm-type machinery and parts thereof.” The applicant chose to pay the differential IGST along with interest of ₹6,50,601 on 10 May 2024. A closure letter dated 13 September 2024 was subsequently issued by Customs, indicating no further action was required.
