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/2018-2019/3510

Whether ‘HDPE Woven Tarpaulin’ could be classified under HSN 6306 of the GST Tariff.

Case: EAST HOOGHLY POLYPLAST PVT LTD

Citation: 12/WBAAR/2018-19 dated 20/07/2018; ARN: 13 of 2018

Issue: Whether ‘HDPE Woven Tarpaulin’ could be classified under HSN 6306 of the GST Tariff.

Brief facts: The applicant company EAST HOOGHLY POLYPLAST PVT LTD , Super Market, Chinsurah Station Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly, West
Bengal – 712102, is registered with GSTN 19AACCE2946G1ZM, states that it is engaged in manufacturer of tarpaulins made from High Density Polyethylene (hereinafter referred to as "HDPE") a woven fabric. The Applicant manufactures Tarpaulins made of HDPE Woven Fabrics as well as Plastic tarpaulins. The Applicant also submits that tarpaulins made from HDPE woven fabric are different from plastic tarpaulins. The former is derived by weaving method using power looms after textile processing and the latter is derived from plain plastic sheets by cutting into shapes and stitching thereafter. The Applicant submits that HDPE Woven Tarpaulins, though made from HDPE, are articles of textile, and, therefore, should be classified under HSN 6306 of the GST Tariff and seeks an advance ruling on the same.

 

Appellant’s contention: The Applicant manufactures Tarpaulins made of HDPE Woven Fabrics as well as Plastic tarpaulins. The Applicant submits that HDPE Woven Tarpaulins, though made from HDPE, are articles of textile, and, therefore, should be classified under HSN 6306 of the GST Tariff.

Respondent’s Contention and Reasoning of Judgement: The authority has obtained various Certificates that were allotted to the Applicant. The Authority has obtained a photocopy of Eligibility Cum Registration Certificate under WBIS-2013 for MSMES in Textile Sector No 21/IV/-1015/2014 dated 13.01.2015 issued by the Office of the Handloom Development Officer, Chinsurah, Handloom, Spinning Mill, Silk Weaving & Handloom based Handicraft Division, Directorate of Textiles, Govt of West Bengal, granting Registration No 191230001 to the Applicant. In communication dated 25.05.2018 to the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Serampore, Hooghly, the Applicant has referred to letter no 1(11)/2015/TTC/42 dated 21.12.2015 issued by the Office of the Textile Commissioner, Mumbai, Ministry of Textiles confirming allotment as a Technical Unit with Registration No 20102008. It is also seen that the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manic Haven, 9 Abrader Shah Afar Margi, New Delhi-110002, has issued Licence under CML No 5713971 valid up to 15.09.2018 to the Applicant for the product Tarpaulin made from High Density Polyethylene Woven Fabric, Multi Layer.

The License has been issued under IS 7903:2017 [Textiles - Tarpaulins Made From High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Woven Fabrics – Specification]

The reasoning has been based on relevant Notes of Section XI of the Tariff Act which reads as under:

Note 1(g) to Section XI of the Tariff Act states that the Section of Textile and Textile Articles covering Chapters 50 to 63 does not include, "Monofilament of which any cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1 mm or strip or the like (for example, artificial straw) of an apparent width exceeding 5 mm, of plastics (chapter 39), or plaits or fabrics or other basket-ware or wickerwork of such monofilament or strip (chapter 46)"

Note 1 (h) to Section XI of the Tariff Act states that the Section of Textile and Textile Articles covering Chapters 50 to 63 does not include, "Woven, knitted or crocheted fabrics, felt or nonwovens, impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics, or articles thereof, of chapter 39"

Thus it can be concluded that, to be included in Chapter 63, the width of the tapes, manufactured from Plastics or articles thereof of Chapter 39, used to weave the fabric should be less than or equal to 5mm and should not be impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics or articles thereof, of chapter 39. Tariff Head 6306 covers "Tarpaulins, awnings and sun blinds; tents; sails for boats, sailboards or land craft; camping goods”. Since HDPE falls under Chapter 39, keeping in mind the Section Notes and the Tariff Heading description it is, therefore, important to ascertain, both, the width of the fabric strip that goes into the weaving and whether or not the tapes are impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics or articles thereof, of Chapter 39. To further understand the same. Specifications of IS 7903:2017 under which BIS has issued a license to the Applicant have been, therefore, referred to. The laid down specifications for 'Tarpaulins made from HDPE woven fabrics'. State that the manufacturing should involve lamination of both sides of the fabric with low density polyethylene (hereinafter LDPE) or LLDPE film of extrusion coating grade. The tarpaulins are obtained by heat sealing the laminated fabric, cut to pieces of desired dimension, and subjecting it to other suitable processes for jointing and fixing of eyelets. The flow chart, as submitted by the Applicant shows manufacturing of HDPE tape from HDPE granules, weaving of the tape into fabrics, and lamination with LDPE sheets/film. The Applicant manufactures tarpaulins both from plain plastic sheet and from HDPE woven fabric conforming to IS 7903:2017. The submission also states that in the tax invoices issued both before and after GST comes into effect the Applicant has classified such tarpaulins under HSN 3926 90 99. 'Tarpaulins made of HDPE woven fabrics' are, therefore, laminate of two materials – HDPE tapes woven into fabrics and LDPE sheets/film, and therefore, as per Section Note 1(h) of Section XI (Textile and Textile Articles) cannot fall under Chapter 63.

Decision:  It has been concluded that 'Tarpaulins made of HDPE woven fabrics' will not be classified under HSN 6306 of the GST Tariff.

Comment:  Under this Case, EAST HOOGHLY POLYPLAST PVT LTD is involved in manufacturer of tarpaulins made from High Density Polyethylene a woven fabric. Issue under the case was about classification of the same under the correct HSN code. There was ambiguity as to whether it would be classified as per the chapters 50 to 63 or chapter 39. However, the 'Tarpaulins made of HDPE woven fabrics' are laminated with two materials – HDPE tapes woven into fabrics and LDPE sheets/film. And therefore, as per Section Note 1(h) of Section XI (Textile and Textile Articles) 'Tarpaulins made of HDPE woven fabrics' cannot fall under Chapter 63. Hence it was held that 'Tarpaulins made of HDPE woven fabrics' will not be classified under HSN 6306 of the GST Tariff.

 

Prepared by:  Adit Gupta

 

 

 

 

           

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

Post a Comment
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