Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : In re  Pandey Traders (GST AAR Uttar Pradesh)
Appeal Number : Advance Ruling No. UP Adrg 21/2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 02/03/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

In re Pandey Traders (GST AAR Uttar Pradesh)

We see that Customs Tariff/HSN do not define ‘Unmanufactured/manufactured tobacco’ in the Section /Chapter notes specifically. ‘Manufacture’ under the GST law is defined under Section 2(72) as (72) manufacture’ means processing of raw material or inputs in any manner that results in emergence of a new product having a distinct name, character and use and the term manufacturer shall be construed accordingly; Thus, any process on the raw material resulting in emergence of a new product with a distinct name, character and use is defined as manufacture’ under GST. In the applicant case the raw unmanufactured tobacco dust which is result of screening of raw tobacco through which tobacco leafs, it stem, and other tender parts are separated through the process drying, winnowing, crushing and separating though sieving, and the better part are used for chewing tobacco and remaining part in raw form i.e. stems, hard veins and leaves of tobacco plant are then crushed in the dust form, and the dust is also sold as such for human consumption. When these tobacco dust under goes process of mixing with scent(mixture of various perfumes and not jarda scent) results in new irreversible product distinct in character in the form of manufactured chewing tobacco.

Thus, it is evident that the raw material undergoes a set of processes and emerges as a distinct product which makes it marketable/consumable for the chewing needs. Therefore, the product supplied by the applicant is “Manufactured Tobacco product for Chewing”. Once it is held that the product is ‘Manufactured Chewing tobacco’, the classification of the product is under CTH 2403 9910 which specifies ‘Chewing Tobacco’ under the head “2403- Other Manufactured tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes….”

The applicant has placed reliance on the different case laws-

i) Yogesh Associates v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-II reported in 2006 (195) ELT 196 (Tri.-Mum.).

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031