Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2020-2021/3582

Classification of ‘Instant Tea Whitener’ manufactured by the applicant and Rate of GST
M/s. LVP Foods Private Limited 2020(32) G.S.T.L. 612 (AAR-GST-UP) dated 06.09.2019
 
Brief Facts:-The applicant is a limited company engaged in the processing and packing of milk in pouches. The applicant propose to manufacture and supply a new product - ‘Instant Tea Whitener’ which would be used like any milk powder used in hotels, restaurants, etc. as well as households for making instant tea and coffee and known as “milk powder” in common trade parlance. As per applicant, the main constituent of ‘Instant Tea Whitener’ would be standard liquid milk which would undergone various process like filtration, separation, pasteurization, evaporation, homogenization etc. to obtain ‘Instant Tea Whitener’ in powdered form, which would then be packed in unit container/sachets.
 
Issue: -Classification of ‘Instant Tea Whitener’ manufactured by the applicant and Rate of GST
 
Appellant’s Contention:-The applicant has further submitted that, as per their view, the aforementioned product could be most appropriately classifiable under Chapter Heading 0402. The HSN Code “0402” covers milk concentrated and containing added sugar or other sweetening matter whether liquid, solid or paste.
The applicant also submit that as per Rule 2b of The General Rules for interpretation of the first schedule (Import Tariff), any reference in a heading to a material/substance shall be taken to include a reference to mixtures or combinations of that material or substance with other materials or substances. In the Applicant’s case, the Chapter Heading 0402 covers milk and even in the addition of other material in small quantities it remains to be milk powder classifiable under Chapter Heading 0402.
The Applicant further submits that as per Rule 3a of the said Rules of interpretation, the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to heading having more general description. According to Rule 3b of the Rules of Interpretation, in case Rule 3a is not applicable, the goods shall be classified as if they consisted of the material/raw material which gives their essential character. In the applicant’s case, the essential character to ‘Instant Tea Whitener’ is given by liquid milk. The said product cannot be manufactured without milk. All other ingredients are ancillary in nature.
Moreover, the applicant also provided RSS of T-Rich” manufactured by M/s. Goodrich Carbohyderate Ltd., Karnal, Haryana and submitted that their product along with ingredients will be similar in nature. Later on, they also provided a copy of Invoice for T-Rich Milk Mix, issued by M/s. Lokenath Enterprises, Changrabandha, West Bengal, wherein the classification of said product was made under Chapter Heading 0402.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-The Authority observed that the product in question i.e., ‘Instant Tea Whitener’ is a product made out of standard liquid milk which undergoes various processes and added with some other additives. Even after addition of other additives, it remains to be milk powder and in common parlance, it would be known as ‘Instant Tea Whitener/milk powder’. They further observed that as per the Rule 3a of the Rules of Interpretation, the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to heading having more general description and according to Rule 3b of the Rules of Interpretations, “Mixtures, composite goods consisting of different material or made up of different components, and goods put up in sets for retail sale, which cannot be classified by reference to (a), shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, in so far as this criterion is applicable”.
In the instant case the authority observed that the main ingredient/essential character of the product in question is given by liquid milk. They are in unison with the contention of the applicant that the said product cannot be manufactured without milk and all other ingredients are ancillary in nature.
 
Ruling:-  The product ‘Instant Tea Whitener’ as described in the application will merit classification under Chapter Heading  0402 of the GST Tariff and would be chargeable to GST at applicable rate under the said tariff entry, presently read with Notification No. 01/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 (Sl. No. 08 of Schedule-I).
 
Comment:-  In Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. (GST AAR Karnataka) ruling, AAR ruled that The “flavoured milk” is not a water based drink whereas the tariff heading 2202 deals with water based beverages and other non alcoholic beverages. Therefore it could be inferred that the pre-dominant part of the beverages covered under the heading 2202 is water. In the instant case the pre­dominant constituent is milk and hence the “flavored milk” does not merit classification under beverage containing milk, under tariff heading 2202 9930, but merits classification as milk, under tariff heading 0402.
Moreover, they relied on the decision of Gujarat Coop. Milk Marketing Federation Ltd Vs State of UP vide 2017(5)0STL 351(All) dated 31.05.2017 wherein it has decided that flavoured Milk is a form of Milk. The Court has also specifically observed that flavoured milk is a form of milk as it is neither a derivative of milk nor a milk product.
Prepared By- Bharat Rathore
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