Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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