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/2018-2019/3468

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