Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : In re M/s. Prem Ghan Products (GST AAR Madhya Pradesh)
Appeal Number : Advance Ruling Order No. 17/2018 & Case No. 16/2018
Date of Judgement/Order : 23/10/2018
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

In re M/s. Prem Ghan Products (GST AAR Madhya Pradesh)

We find that the present application seeks Ruling on appropriate classification of goods manufactured by the Applicant and marketed and supplied as Mouth Fresheners. The Applicant have submitted that they have been manufacturing and supplying the impugned item by classifying the same under Chapter 2106 of the HS Code paying GST @18%. It has been admitted and revealed by the Applicant that even during the pre-GST regime they had been clearing the impugned product under Chapter Head 2106.

We further observe that the Applicant has been clearing/selling/supplying the impugned product under Chapter 21016 since long, i.e. much prior to roll out of GST with effect from 01.07.2017. We also take a note of the fact narrated by the Applicant in Para 2 of Annexure 04 (Statement containing the applicant’s interpretation of law and facts) of the Application, which says, ‘The classification of the assessee’s finished product under chapter heading 2106 is in line with the classification under Central Excise Law and Central Excise Tariff. This statement of the Applicant is enough to conclude that there was no dispute regarding classification of the impugned product during pre-GST regime.

We find that while the impugned product was being classified under Chapter Head 2106 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Act 1985, there is neither any change in ingredients nor any change in manufacturing process. To be precise, the impugned product remains the same in GST regime with no change from pre-GST regime.

The solitary reason for the Applicant in moving instant application, as we could gather from the contents of the application, appears to be alleged divergent practice of classification of similar products of some other manufacturers. Be that as it may, nothing concrete has been brought on record by the Applicant that would necessitate review of already established classification of the impugned product of the Applicant.

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
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031