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/2018-2019/3530

If the tips and balls used in the manufacturing of ball point pens are not taxable at the rate of 12% under HSN 9608, then at what rate shall they be taxable and under which HSN?
Case:Shiva Writing Company Pvt. ltd

Citation:44/WBAAR/2018-19 dated 13.03.19

Issue:If the tips and balls used in the manufacturing of ball point pens are not taxable at the rate of 12% under HSN 9608, then at what rate shall they be taxable and under which HSN?
Brief facts: Applicant is in the business of manufacturing and supplying of ball point pens. The applicant requires pen tips and balls for manufacturing of pens. Balls are used inside tips in order to make tips working. Applicant also trades and supplies ball point pen tips and refills to various dealers.

Respondent’s Contention and Reasoning of Judgment:
Since the applicant has referred to the products as ball point pen balls and Nibs, thenit appeared to AAR that applicant was using the words “Tip” and “Nib” interchangeably, and to clear the confusion applicant was asked to submit samples of the products on which the Ruling has been sought for. The applicant only referred in their query about the tax rate on “Tip” and “Balls”.
“Nibs” and “Tips” of pens are completely two different products with distinguishable anatomy catering to different kinds of ink and hence, use. While the split down the centre is the essential and salient feature of a “Nib”, the ball at the end of the refill is the essential and salient feature of a “Tip”. The two terms cannot be used synonymously and/or as substitutes of each other.
Thereafter, after testing the samples, the authority concluded that the product on which Ruling has been sought is pen balls and “tips” and takes up the matter of classification and applicability of the Rate Notification.
Rules of Interpretation of Tariff:Where description of an article or group of articles under a heading is preceded by “-“,such descriptions under “-” (single dash) are first to be considered for sub-classification under a Heading first, before proceeding to further classify under “–” (double dash). Articles whose description are preceded by a “—” (triple dash) or “—-” (quadruple dash) are sub classifications of the immediately preceding single dash or double dash, as the case may be.
Classification as per Customs Tariff Act, 1975:-‘Tips and ball of pens’, essentially are “parts” of refills. Therefore they cannot be classified in either as Ball point pens (960810) or Felt tipped and other porous-tipped pens and markers (960820) or Fountain pens, stylograph pens and other pens (960830) or Propelling or sliding pencils (960840) or Sets of articles from two or more of the foregoing sub-headings (960850) or Refills for ball point pens, comprising the ball point and ink-reservoir (960860). Hence, it has to be classified under “-Other”, which includes:
–960891: Pen nibs and nib points
— 9608 99: Other
Since, nibs and nib points are not similar to tips and the Applicant is in the business of manufacturing “ball-point pens” and not “fountain pens”, the classification of “tips and balls for pen” should fall under –9609 99: Other, which includes
 — 9608 99 10: Pen holders, pencil holders and similar holders
— 9608 99 90: Others
Since, “tips and balls of pens” are definitively not considered as part of “Pen holders, pencil holders and similar holders” they are to be classified under 9608 99 90: Others, under HSN 9608 and are to be taxed accordingly.
Classification as Rate Notification No. 01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 (as amended from time to time)-:In the Rate Notification ball point pens, classified under HSN 9608, are included under Sl No. 232 of Schedule II under the description: “pens other than fountain pens, stylograph pens”. The same Notification also mentions “fountain pens, stylograph pens” under Sl No. 447 of Schedule III. However, parts of pen, including “tips and balls of pens”, classifiable under HSN 9608 as discussed above, are not exempted or specifically included under entries of any other schedules. They are, therefore, to be included under Sl No. 453 of Schedule III and taxable @ 9% CGST and 9% SGST.

Decision:  Tips and Balls” of Ball Point Pens are to be classified under GST Tariff Heading 9608 99 90 and included under Sl No. 453 of Schedule III of Notification No. 01/2017–Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (corresponding State Notification No. 1125-FT dated 28/06/2017)
Comment:  The gist of the case is that Tips and Balls” of Ball Point Pens are to be classified under GST Tariff Heading 9608 99 90.
 
Prepared by:  Adit Gupta
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