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/2018-2019/3468

What is the classification when frozen meat is sold in packaged form and rate of tax to be applicable?

Case:GITWAKO FARMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
 
Citation:2018 (15) G.S.T.L. 127 (A.A.R. - GST)
 
Issue: What is the classification when frozen meat is sold in packaged form and rate of tax to be applicable?
 
Brief facts:The brief fact of case is thatM/s. Gitwako Farms (India) Pvt. Ltd. supplies to Army and Para Military Forces sheep/goat meat in carcasses of different weight and size in frozen state. Each frozen carcass is put in LDPE bag (primary packing) which is sealed with a tie and no weight is mentioned on such LDPE bags. Thereafter, one or two of such LDPE bags are put in dust and moisture proof food grade HDPE bags (secondary packing). On such HDPE bags, contents including product name, firms name and brand, net weight, batch no., lot no., and instructions for consumption and preservation of such meat are printed.
 
The frozen meat as packed above is then deliver in temperature controlled refrigerated vans with data-logger installed for continues monitoring.
 
In the above backdrop of facts, the applicant has submitted the application for advance ruling on the following :
(1)    What is the classification when frozen meat is sold in packaged form and its HSN code?
(2)    What is the rate of tax on frozen meat sold by the company?
 
Appellant’s contention:. The applicant was afforded a personal hearing for 24-5-2018. The issue raised by the applicant for advance ruling, whether their product can be said to be packed in a unit container to fall under the scope of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and 1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 or Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017. is covered under the scope of Section 97 of CGST/HGST Act, 2017 and therefore, the application was admitted.
 
As regard the classification of their product, the departmental representative had stated that the applicant firm is packing the animal carcasses in bags for supplying to their customers, i.e. Army, in unit containers and therefore it attracts GST @ 12%.
 
The applicant had strongly argued that the packing done by them cannot be said to be unit containers as it is defined in the explanation to mean a package designed to hold a pre-determined quantity or number which is indicated on such package. The applicant had cited several case laws where the definition of unit container had been discussed and adjudicated.
 
After hearing and discussion in detail, the decision on the question sought to be answered was reserved.
 
Respondent’s Contention:
We find that jurisdictional officer has made written submission which are as under:-
GST is chargeable as reference to value and at applicable rates. For the purpose of building a point of view reference is made to the IGST rate schedule.
 
W.e.f. from 1st July, 2017 till 14th November, 2017
 
Schedule II of the Notification No. 1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated 28th June, 2017 deals with the products which are subject to 12% GST and Entry No. 4 which pertain to sheep meat is provided below :-
SCHEDULE-II

Sr. No. Chapter/Heading/ Sub-heading/Tariff item Description of Goods
4. 0204 Meat of sheep or goats, frozen and put up in unit containers

 
A reading of the above entry in the above mentioned notification would reveal that if the items mentioned in Tariff Heading 0204 are frozen and put up in a ‘unit container, it would be exigible to tax @ 12%.
 
Correspondingly, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Central Government vide Notification No. 2/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) New Delhi, dated 28-6-2017 has exempted, Inter-State supplies of goods, from the whole of the Integrated Tax leviable thereon. Relevant extract is reproduced below :
SCHEDULE-

Sr. No. Chapter/Heading/ Sub-heading/Tariff item Description of Goods
1 0204 Meat of sheep or goats, [other than frozen and put up in unit containers]

 
W.e.f. from 15th November, 2017 onwards.
Schedule I of the Notification No. 43/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated 14th November, 2017 deals with the products which are subject to 5% GST and Entry No. 1 which pertain to sheep meat and poultry meat are provided below :-
SCHEDULE-I

Sr. No. Chapter/Heading/ Sub-heading/Tariff item Description of Goods
1 0204 All goods (other than fresh or chilled) and put up in unit container and, -
(a) bearing a registered brand name;
  0207 Or
    (b) bearing a brand name on which actionable claim or enforceable right in court of law is available [other than those where any actionable claim or enforceable right in respect of such brand name has been foregone voluntarily], subject to conditions as in the annexure I]”:

 
A reading of the above mentioned entries would reveal that the items mentioned in Tariff Heading 0204 or 0207 [other than fresh or chilled] would be exigible to tax @ 5% if these are put up in a ‘unit container’ and bears a brand name or bears a brand name on which actionable claim or enforceable right in court of law is available [other than those where any actionable claim or enforceable right in respect of such brand name has been foregone voluntarily], subject to conditions as in the annexure I to the said notification.
 
Correspondingly, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 the Central Government via Notification No. 44/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) New Delhi, dated 14-11-2017 has exempted, Inter-State supplies of goods, from the whole of the integrated tax leviable thereon. Relevant extract is reproduced below :
SCHEDULE-

Sr. No. Chapter/Heading/ Sub-heading/Tariff item Description of Goods
8 0204 All goods, fresh or chilled
  0207  
7. 0204 All goods (other than fresh or chilled) other than those put up in unit container and, -
  0207 (a) bearing a registered brand name; or
(b) bearing a brand name on which actionable claim or enforceable right in court of law is available [other than those where any actionable claim or enforceable right in respect of such brand name has been foregone voluntarily], subject to conditions as in the annexure I]”;

 
 
A conjoint reading of the extracts of the above mentioned notifications reveal that on products of Chapter/Heading/Sub-heading/Tariff Item 0204 and 0207 GST is chargeable subject to fulfilment of conditions as tabulated below :
W.e.f. 1st July, 2017 to 14th November, 2017
•      Must be frozen
•      Must be packed in unit container
W.e.f. 15th November, 2017
•      Must be frozen
•      Must be packed in unit container
•      Must bear a brand.
Since the applicant has sought advance ruling only on the question of taxability of the product viz-a-viz the packing being considered as unit container or not, it is worth understanding the meaning of the word unit container. As per the explanation appended with the above stated notification :-
 
‘the phrase ‘unit container’ means a package, whether large or small (for example tin, can, jar, box, bottle, bag, carton, drum, barrel or canister) designed to hold a pre-determined quantity or number, which is indicated on such package.’
 
It is the case of the applicant that they supply to Army sheep/goat meat in carcasses of different weight and size in frozen state. Each frozen carcass is put in LDPE bag (primary packing) which is sealed with a tie and no weight is mentioned on such LDPE bags. Thereafter, generally two of such LDPE bags are put in HDPE bags (secondary packing) and the weight of both the packed carcasses is mentioned on the secondary packing. Thus, the packing of the frozen carcasses done by them is only a medium of delivery and since these are not in pre-determined units, these packing cannot be termed as ‘Unit Containers’.
 
To substantiate their view regarding unit container the applicant had cited several case laws. Reliance is placed on the case of CCE v. Shalimar Super Foods [2007 (210) E.L.T. 695(Tri.-Mumbai] and Surya Agro Oils Ltd. v. CCE, Indore,2000 (116) E.L.T. 514.
 
In CCE v. Shalimar Super Foods [2007 (210) E.L.T. 695(Tri.-Mumbai], the Hon’ble Bench had considered the question of ‘Unit Container’ and observed in Para 3 :
“3……..However, unit container, as per the definitions contained in several dictionaries, is a container containing pre-determined uniform quantities of contents whereas the items cleared by the respondents were not of uniform quantities. For this reason the goods in question which were cleared in plastic bags not sealed and not containing pre-printed quantities thereon, cannot be treated as unit containers for the purpose of classification of meat articles packed therein under CET sub-heading 1601.10.”
 
In Surya Agro Oils Ltd. v. CCE, Indore,2000 (116) E.L.T. 514, The Hon’ble Bench had held the HDPE sack weighing 20 Kg. each of pasta comprising of 2 LDPE bags weighing 10 Kg each was held to be a ‘Unit Container’ by observing that the HDPE bag contained LDPE bags of 10 Kg. each, which were standardised.
 
Reasoning of Judgement: In view of the above decisions of the Hon’ble Tribunals and the understanding of definitions of ‘Unit Container’ the authority of Advance ruling held that they are of a considered view that the packaging of frozen sheep/goat carcasses for delivery in primary LDPE bags further packed in secondary HDPE bags of non-standardised quantity done by the applicant cannot be regarded as ‘Unit Container’ since it is not standardised to hold a uniform pre-determined quantity. Also in the explanation appended to the Notification No. 1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated 28th June, 2017 a unit container means a package, whether large or small (for example tin, can, jar, box, bottle, bag, carton, drum, barrel or canister) designed to hold a pre-determined quantity or number, which is indicated on such package. The explanation itself suggests that the make of the container should be such which can hold a pre-determined quantity or number. It should be such that when packed it holds the pre-determined quantity or the number for which it is designed. As shown to us the packaging by the applicant can weigh 10 Kgs. or 11 Kgs. or for that matter 10.5 or 10.25 Kgs. depending upon the weight of two frozen carcasses, packed in secondary packaging. Neither the packaging is uniform or standardised nor the packages are designed to hold a pre-determined quantity.
Advance Ruling under Section 98 of the CGST/HGST Act, 2017
In the backdrop of above discussion and findings it is ruled that
(a)    The whole (sheep/goat) animal carcass in frozen state in different weight and size packed in LDPE bags without mentioning the weight and one or two such LDPE bags further packed in HDPE bags having mention of varying actual total weight of the carcasses packed in each such HDPE bags and supplied to Army shall not qualify as product put up in ‘Unit Container’.
(b)    The product as mentioned at (a) above fall under exemption list as per Entry No. 10 of Notification No. 2/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated 28th June, 2017 upto 14th November, 2017 and thereafter as per Entry No. 9 of Notification No. 44/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated 14th November, 2017.
 
Decision: The Advance Authority of Ruling allowed the application submitted by the applicant.
Comment: The  Adavance Ruling authority concluded that the frozen meat sold by the applicant cannot be considered as unit container (which means have predetermined quantity or unit of the product) and would be exempted from the tax liability.
 
Prepared By:PushpaChoudhary
 

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