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/2018-2019/3464

Whether Automatic Taps, Urinals and WC Flushing Systems would be classified under heading 9032 or Heading 8481 of Central Excise tariff?
Case:AOS SYSTEMS VersusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI
Citation:2018 (13) G.S.T.L. 167 (Tri. - Del.)
Issue:Whether Automatic Taps, Urinals and WC Flushing Systems would be classified under heading 9032 or Heading 8481 of Central Excise tariff?
Brief facts: The appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No. 24/2016, dated 27-3-2017. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Automatic Taps, Urinals and WC Flushing Systems. All three products are hand free plumbing products, which are normally used in public toilets. In the case of Automatic Tap, when the hands of the user break the infrared beams, the device is activated and the flow of water commences. In the case of Automatic Urinal and WC Flushing Systems, the system gets activated when the person moves away and flushing happens. The appellant classified the products under CETH 8543 90, since they commenced manufacture in 1998. In the budget of 2014, a concessional rate of duty of 10 per cent was prescribed for the goods falling under Chapter 84 and 85. This exemption notification remained in force from 17-2-2014 of 31-2-2014. The Department was of the view that the appellant had wrongly classified the product under 8543 90 and cleared the same by paying duty at the rate of 10 per cent. The Original Authority vide his order dated 31-12-2015 ordered classification of all the three products under CETH 9032 89 10 and held them as liable to duty at 12 per cent as against the concessional rate of 10 per cent. However, the Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, ordered classification of the Automatic Taps under CETH 8481 and the other two products under CETH 9032. Aggrieved by the impugned order the present appeal has been filed, in which the appellant has claimed the classification of all the products under CETH 8481.
 
Appellant’s contention:Applicant submits that the there is no material difference between the three products for the purpose of classification. He cited the ruling of US Customs to justify the classification of all the products under 8481.
 
Respondent’s Contention:The Ld. DR on the other hand, justified the impugned order. He referred to the leaflet of the products manufactured by the appellant and argued that the classification ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct.

Reasoning of Judgement: We have heard both sides and perused the records. The three products manufactured by the appellant are:-
(i)    The Automatic Water Tap :-
This is a water tap in which a sensor is located which controls flow automatically, once a hand is placed or removed near the tap.
(ii)   Automatic Flushing System for urinal;
(iii)  Automatic Flushing System for WC.
In respect of the items at (ii), (iii) the appellant manufactures only the electronic device which is operated through batteries and mounted on the water lines and placed on the wall. After someone uses the urinal/WC and moves away, the sensor in the system operates the flow of water and cleans urinal/WC. It is to be noted that the electronic device manufactured by the appellant does not come fitted on any WC or Urinal. The competing CETH, 8481 as well as 9032 are copied below for ready reference.
8481 Taps cocks, valves and similar appliances for pips, boiler shells, tanks, vas or the like, including pressure - reducing valves and thermostatically controlled valves.
8481 10 00 Pressure - reducing valves
8481 20 00 Valves for oleo hydraulic or pneumatic transmission
8481 30 00 Check non-return valves
8481 40 00 Safety or relief valves
8481 80 Other appliances
8481 80 10 Taps, cooks and similar appliances of iron or steel
8481 80 20 Taps, cooks and similar appliances of non-ferrous, metal
8481 80 30 Industrial valves (excluding pressure-reducing valves, and thermostatically controlled valves).
  Inner tube valves
8481 80 41 For bicycles
8481 80 49 Other
8481 80 50 Expansion valves and solenoid valves for refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances and machinery
8481 80 90 Other
8481 90 Parts
8481 90 10 Bicycle valves
8481 90 90 Other
 
CETH 9032 :- Automatic regulating or controlling instruments and apparatus.
9032 Automatic regulation or controlling instruments and apparatus
9032 10 Thermostats
9032 10 10 For refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances and machinery
9032 10 90 Other
9032 20 Manos tats
9032 20 10 For refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances and machinery
9032 20 90 Other
  Other instruments and apparatus
9032 81 00 Hydraulic or pneumatic
9032 89 Other
9032 89 10 Electronic automatic regulators
9032 89 90 Other
9032 90 00 Parts and accessories
9033 00 00 Parts and accessories (not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter) for machines, appliances, instruments or apparatus of chapter 90.
 
 
It is evident from the head note under 8481 that this heading covers various types of Taps, Locks, Valves etc. The Automatic Tap manufactured by the appellant, no doubt incorporates an electronic control device, but functions as a Tap to regulate the flow of liquid. Consequently, the essential character of the products remains the tap and hence, it is rightly classifiable under CETH 8481.
In respect of the Automatic Flushing System for Urinal and WC, it is noted that the appellants manufacture only the electronic device that is fitted to the water supply line so as to flush the device automatically. However, WC/Urinal is not part of the goods manufactured by the appellant. The goods manufactured are in the nature of instruments/apparatus for automatically controlling of the flow of the fluid. Hence, these are most appropriately classifiable under CETH 9032, as ordered in the impugned order.
In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
 
Decision: Appeal Dismissed
Comment: The analogy of the caseis that it is concluded that the applicant is engaged in manufacture of Automatic Urinals and WC Flushing Systems would be classified  under the heading 9032 of central  excise Tariff and Automatic Water Tap would be classified under the Heading 8481 of Central Excise Tariff.
Prepared By: Pushpa Choudhary
 
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