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/2018-2019/3511

Whether the activity of Packing of Tea bags can be classified as a Manufacturing service under SAC 9988 (Manufacturing services on physical inputs owned by others).
Case:Vedika Exports Tea Pvt Ltd
Citation:ARN:  AD191218000038C, Order No. 36/WBAAR/2018-19
Issue:Whether the activity of Packing of Tea bags can be classified as a Manufacturing service.
Brief facts:The Applicant, Vedika Exports Tea Pvt Ltd is registered with the GSTN 19AAACV8586B1Z1, is a contract packer of tea bags. The process of service undertaken by the Applicant involves assembly of materials on machine, including blended tea leaves and other inputs received from the recipient of the service. The applicant classifies this activity as packaging service under SAC 9985 and charge GST under Sl. No. 23 (iii) of Notification No. 11/2017 – CT (Rate). The Applicant received a communication from one of the recipients of the services provided, namely, M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd. HUL was of the view that the service should be taxed under Sl No. 26(f) of the Rate Notification. Sl. No. 26(f) of the Rate Notification applies to manufacturing service on physical inputs owned by others (SAC 9988) for food and food products.
Appellant’s contention:The appellant stated that as per its agreement with HUL, the Applicant shall manufacture and/or process and pack tea bags of Taj Mahal, Lipton and Brook Bond brands at his plants at 17 Taratala Road, Kolkata – and BBT Road, Kolkata.
Respondent’s Contention and Reasoning of Judgement: The Respondent has undergone an analysis of the appellant’s agreement with HUL. It observed that as per the Agreement, HUL shall procure, transport and deliver to the Applicant’s manufacturing units all the raw materials, packing materials and other materials required for such activities. The ownership and property in the materials so delivered shall at all times vests in and belong exclusively to HUL. The Applicant has no liberty to apply such materials for any purpose other than processing and packing of the products for HUL. HUL shall provide insurance cover against fire, spontaneous combustion, explosion and other risks, presuming the Applicant ensures reasonable precaution to safeguard HUL’s materials, work in progress and finished goods while in his custody. HUL will also bear the cost of waste disposal. It is, therefore, evident that the processes undertaken are on physical inputs owned by HUL. The flow chart of the processes undertaken at the appellant’s manufacturing unit show that the blended tea received from HUL, after quality control procedure, is passed through hoppers, magnetic grill and mesh, and ends with filling tea leaves into the tea bag pouches and stitching. The tea bags are then subjected to quality control before being packed in cartons, wrapped and put into boxes, stored and delivered to HUL after sample testing.
As per the de Section 2(72) of the GST Act  manufacture refers to  processing of raw materials or inputs in any manner that results in the emergence of a new product having a distinct name, character and use. Packaging activity, on the other hand, makes the same product more suitable for handling, delivery, preservation, retailing etc. Filling goods in pouches is usually a packaging activity because it enables delivery of the same goods to the consumer in the right quantity and quality, depending upon the market dynamics. Consumption of the goods so packed requires they be taken out of the pouches. However, consuming tea contained in a tea bag does not require the tea leaves to be taken out of the bag. The tea bag itself is dipped in water, as the bag is porous and is filled with tea leaves. Tea bags, therefore, are distinct from tea leaves, offering a user-friendly way of making the beverage. Tea bag pouch is, therefore, not a packaging material, but an input required for manufacturing tea bag as a commercial item separate from blended tea leaves. It is a new product having a distinct name, character and use, and classified as such under Tariff item 0902.
Since the product is classifiable as a commercial item, it is now clear that the Applicant’s service to HUL for manufacturing tea bags is service for manufacturing a product classified under Tariff item 0902, where physical inputs are owned by the recipient. The supply is, therefore, to be classified under SAC 9988
(Manufacturing services on physical inputs owned by others) and taxed under Sl No. 26(f) of the Rate Notification. The Applicant also provides service of packaging the manufactured tea bags in cartons, wraps them up and put them in specially designed boxes. HUL owns and provides all such packaging materials also. These two services (service for manufacturing tea bags and the service for packaging of the manufactured tea bags) are supplied in terms of a single contract and at a single price. The agreement shows that the services are supplied as processes in a continuous assembly line, where packaging of tea bags in cartons and wrapping is ancillary to manufacturing tea bags. The tea bags, of course, cannot be delivered unless they are suitably packed. The Applicant is, therefore, making a composite supply to HUL where the service of manufacturing tea bags from the physical inputs owned by HUL is the principal supply.
Decision:  The activity of Packing of Tea bags will be classified as a Manufacturing service.
Comment:  The gist of the case is that the activity of Packing of Tea Bags will be classified as a Manufacturing services on physical inputs owned by others (SAC 9988) since this activity results in the manufacture of a Commercial item i.e; the tea bag, which is absolutely different from the input which was used in manufacturing it, be it in terms of its Name, character and of course its use. However the appellant also further packs these Tea bags into cartons and wraps them up before it is supplied to HUL. This Service of packaging of tea bags in cartons and wrapping is ancillary to manufacturing tea bags. Thereby, the service that is provided by appellant to HUL is a composite supply consisting of two taxable services, where the service of manufacturing tea bags from the physical inputs owned by HUL is the principal supply.
 
Prepared by:  Adit Gupta
 
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