Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2018-2019/3499

Classification and rate of GST on PP non-woven bags
Case: U S POLYTECH
Citation: 31/WBAAR/2018-19 dated 08.01.2019
Issue: Classification and rate of GST on PP non-woven bags
 Brief facts:U S POLYTECH(herein after referred to as the applicant) is a a manufacturer of Polypropylene Non-Woven Bags which are mainly used by big industrial units, retail outlets and textile shops for packing of different goods and have been granted registration by the Office of the Textile Commissioner of Textile based products. The Applicant is of the opinion that PP Non-woven bags manufactured is classifiable under Tariff Head 6305 90 00 of the GST Tariff which is aligned to the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the "the Tariff Act").
Appellant’s contention:The Applicant relies on the order passed in case of the Office of the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Madurai vide C.No. IV/16/84/2017 –Tech (GST) Vol I dated 01.01.2018 that Non-woven bags and rice bags falling under HSN 6305 90 00 of Custom Tariff will attract GST @5% (SGST 2.5% and CGST 2.5%), if sale value does not exceed Rs. 1000/- and GST @ 12% (SGST 6% and CGST 6%) is sale value exceeds Rs.1000/- The Applicant also submits the order of AAR, Kerala wherein bags of non-woven fabrics are classified under Entry 224 of Schedule 1 of Notification 01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2018. The Applicant also submitted a copy of order No C3/17556/09/CT dated 29.09.2009 issued by the Department of Commercial Taxes, Kerala, in which it is clarified that non woven fabrics made of Polypropylene would fall under the general heading of 5603 of the Customs Tariff Act and under Entry 103 of SRO No 82/2006, and Packing Bags, textile bags and carry bags made out of non woven fabrics of polypropylene is covered under HSN 6305.33.00 and the mentioned HSN Code appears under Entry 174(7)(1) of List A of the Third Schedule to the KVAT Act, 2003. The Applicant stated that they are manufacturing a similar kind of product as is mentioned in the aforesaid Advance Ruling issued by AAR, Kerala dated 29.05.2018 and seeks to clarify whether the Applicant can also apply the same rate as stated in the Advance Ruling.
Respondent’s Contention and Judgment: The authority for Advance Ruling stated that it has considered the submissions made by the applicant in their application for advance ruling. The applicant has not submitted the details of the raw materials used for manufacturing, as well as the manufacturing process, product manufactured and their end use, but has simply referred to various judgments. However, by referring to the documents submitted by the appellant, it may be inferred that the raw materials are PP granules which are bonded to form a sheet before stitching them into bags.
The product being manufactured on which Ruling has been sought is the same as that mentioned in Advance Ruling Order No CT/5492/18-C3 dated 29.05.2018 issued by the Kerala Authority of Advance Ruling on M/s J J Fabrics. JJ Fabrics had submitted that the primary raw materials for polypropylene sheets are polypropylene granules, color master batches and filter content (calcium carbonate). They have provided the whole process of manufacturing in the ruling. JJ Fabric also submitted that the bags made out of these Polypropylene Sheets are used by industrial units, big retail outlets and textile shops for packing their commodities.
In light of the submission in the Application that the product manufactured by the Applicant is the same as that taken up by the Authority of Advance Ruling, Kerala, and the sample submitted by the Applicant, and in the absence of any contrary independent information provided by the Applicant, it is to be assumed that raw material of the non woven bags manufactured by them is Polypropylene, the manufacturing process involves obtaining a continuous single polypropylene filament, portions of which is lapped on each other on a lapper and then subject to thermal bonding to form a polypropylene sheet from which bags are made, which are used by industrial units, big retail outlets and textile shops for packing their commodities.
 Tariff item 6305 33 00 under the GST Tariff covers sacks and bags, of a kind used for packing of goods, made, not of jute or of other textile bast fibres of Heading 5303, but of man-made textile materials which are not flexible intermediate bulk containers but are of polyethylene or polypropylene strip or the like.
The bags made by the Applicant are non-woven and are manufactured from polypropylene sheets, not from Polypropylene Strips.
Tariff item 6305 33 00, therefore, will not be an appropriate classification for the bags manufactured by the Applicant.
 In its order dated 26/10/2018, disposing Appeal Case No. 06/WBAAAR/Appeal/2018 dated 08/08/2018, the West Bengal Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (hereinafter the Appellate Authority) refers to the judgment in the case of Raj Pack Well Ltd [1993 (41) ECC 285 (Madhya Pradesh)]. In the aforesaid case the High Court examines the meaning of textile and fibre under sections 2(g) and 2(a) respectively of the Textile Committee Act, 1963, and concludes that plastic is not included in either textile or fibre. It examines the process of manufacturing HDPE woven bags and observes that they are made from plastic. The Appellate Authority has followed this judgment for ascertaining whether PP woven Leno bags are classifiable under Chapter 39, and classifies such bags as plastic goods.
Polypropylene sheets are, therefore, plastic, and, applying the ratio of the judgment in the matter of Raj Pack Well Ltd (supra), bags made from Polypropylene sheets are to be classified as plastic goods under Chapter 39. Sub-heading 3923 29 covers articles of conveyance or packing of goods, namely sacks and bags, made of plastics other than polyethylene. Polypropylene Non-Woven Bags that the Applicant manufactures, are therefore, classifiable under Sub-heading 3923 29.
Decision:The application Disposed of
Comment: Considering the ruling of the Kerala Ruling Authority and judgement of Raj Pack Well Ltd, it was concluded that polypropylene sheets are not classified under the Tariff item 6305 33 0. Since this GST Tariff covers sacks and bags.  Polypropylene Non-Woven Bags are therefore considered as plastic bags and  classifiable under Sub-heading 3923 29.
Prepared by:  Himanshu Bhimani
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com