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/2016-2017/3463

Whether the product manufactured under the brand name “SIKA Block Joining Mortar” is covered under HSN 3824 50 90 or HSN 3214 90 10?
Case: SIKA INDIA PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 400 (A.A.R. - GST)
Issue: Whether the product manufactured under the brand name “SIKA Block Joining Mortar” is covered under HSN 3824 50 90 or HSN 3214 90 10?
Brief facts: - . The Applicant has stated that the product “SIKA Block Joining Mortar” is presently classified under HSN 3214 90 10 and that this product is basically ready to use Grey Cement based non-shrink, self curing water resistance mortar for fixing AAC Blocks, Concrete Blocks Fly Ash Bricks etc. HSN 3214 talks about Glaziers, Putty, Resin Cements, Caulking Compounds and other mastics; painters’ fillings, non refractory surfacing preparations for facades, indoor walls, floor, ceilings or the like.
 
AdvanceRuling is admissible on this question under Section 97(1)(a) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the GST Act”).
 
Appellant’s contention: .During Personal Hearing dated 22-3-2018 the Applicant submitted a written submission in which the above points were reiterated and submitted copies of a few invoice cum delivery challans, where, the Applicant claims, the competitors were supplying similar products classified under HSN 3824 50 90. The Applicant also submitted a copy of the Order Nos. 57583-57585/2017, dated 2-11-2017 of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter CESTAT), Delhi. The Applicant also produced an order dated 28-7-2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) CGST & Customs, Goa, disposing appeal case No. GOA-EXCUS-000-APP-059-2017-18. The written submissions also refer to order dated 30-10-2001 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter the CEGAT), Mumbai, in Roofit Industries Ltd. [2002 (149) E.L.T. 541] and also order dated 10-4-2017 of Commissioner of Sales Tax, West Bengal, passed in case No. 24X/PRO/VAT/16/303 in the matter of M/s. UAL Industries Ltd.
 
Reasoning of Judgement: The AAR contended thatCESTAT remands the matter to the departmental authority with direction to carefully examine the claim of the appellant (i.e. M/s Sika India Pvt Ltd) for classification of its products under sub-head 3824 keeping in mind the views of the CESTAT in the above order. The views of the CESTAT are that most of the construction chemicals manufactured by the appellant that are in the nature of cement, grout, repair mortar, repair concrete etc. are not of a type used for surfacing preparations for walls, ceilings etc. and thus not classifiable under subhead 3214.
In its above order dated 28-7-2017 the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Customs, Goa, however, finds Sika Quick Mortar classifiable under Tariff Item 3214 90 90 in terms of Chapter Heading No. 3214 to the HSN.
In Roofit Industries Ltd. the CEGAT, Mumbai, finds ready-mix plasters for plastering walls classifiable under subhead 3214.
In UAL Industries Ltd. the Commissioner of Sales Tax, West Bengal, finds ‘dry mix mortar’, made by mixing sand, fly ash, OPC/PPC Cement, hydrated lime and polymer additives, classifiable as tariff item 3824 50 90.
None of the above orders have dealt with the Applicant’s product, namely ‘Sika Block Joining Mortar’. The product needs to be understood before exploring the classification options. It is a ready to use grey cement based water resistant mortar for fixing AAC blocks, fly ash bricks etc. Its chemical base is cementitious mortar modified with polymers. It is available in powdered form in 30 kg bags. It needs to be mixed thoroughly with water before applying a thin uniform layer of the paste to cleaned and levelled surface of the masonry units (AAC blocks, fly ash brick etc.) using trowel. The next masonry unit is to be gently pressed and get jointed and so on [Source : the datasheet presented by the Applicant and also the information available in the Applicant’s website]. It is, therefore, a bonding compound used for joining masonry units like AAC blocks and fly ash bricks. It is a powder made pasty before use by adding water, and it hardens after application, enabling joining of the masonry units. It is applied with a trowel after cleaning the surface.
We will now discuss the classification options. Heading 3214 of the Tariff Act covers “GLAZIERS’ PUTTY, GRAFTING PUTTY, RESIN CEMENTS, CAULKING COMPOUNDS AND OTHER MASTICS; PAINTERS’ FILLINGS; NON-REFRACTORY
SURFACING PREPARATIONS FOR FACADES, INDOOR WALLS, FLOORS, CEILINGS OR
3214 10 00
-
Glaziers’ putty, grafting putty, resin cements, caulking compounds and other mastics, painters’ fillings
3214 90
-
Other :
3214 90 10
---
Non-refractory surfacing preparations
3214 90 20
---
Resin Cement
3214 90 90
---
Other
 
Terms like non-refractory surfacing preparation or mortar are not defined in the GST Act, nor is the ambit of the related headings, in the present context, discussed in the Explanatory Notes to the Tariff Act. The orders and decisions the Applicant has referred to are also not explicit on this issue. Under such circumstances, it is a settled legal practice to refer to the Explanatory Notes to Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System of World Customs Organization, Brussels, to decipher the Internationally accepted scope of the headings and tariff items. According to such Explanatory Notes Heading 3214 includes preparations that are usually put up in a more or less pasty form and in general which harden after application. Some of them are solid or in powdered form made pasty at the time of use by heating or by addition of a liquid like water. They are usually applied with a caulking gun, a spatula, a trowel or similar tools.
Products under HSN 3214 10 00 are preparations mainly used to stop, seal, or caulk cracks, and, in certain cases bond or firmly join components together. They are distinguished from glue and other adhesives by the fact that they are applied in thick coatings or layers.
Products under HSN 3214 90 10 includes non-refractory surfacing preparations for facades, indoor walls, floors, ceilings or the like. These preparations are used to make such surfaces waterproof and improve their appearance. They include powdered preparations containing plaster and sand with plasticisers, preparations for setting walls or floor tiles, pasty preparations made by coating mineral fillers with binders with added pigments and water or solvent.
HSN 3214 90 90 is a residuary classification. It should include all other products that have the general characteristics mentioned above, and, therefore, classifiable under heading 3214, but are not specifically mentioned. Clearly, 'Sika Block Joining Mortar’ satisfies the general characteristics of such products as per the Explanatory Notes above, and, therefore, classifiable under this tariff item.
The contesting Heading 3824 covers PREPARED BINDERS FOR FOUNDRY MOULDS OR CORES; CHEMICAL PRODUCTS AND PRE-PARATIONS OF THE CHEMICAL OR ALLIED INDUSTRIES (INCLUDING THOSE CONSISTING OF MIXTURES OF NATURAL PRODUCTS), NOT ELSEWHERE SPECIFIED OR INCLUDED. Clearly, a chemical preparation can be classified under such residuary heading only if it is not elsewhere specified. As the Applicant’s product, namely ‘Sika Block Joining Mortar’ is already specified under Tariff Item 3214 90 90, Heading 3824 does not come into the picture.
 
Decision:  The Application for advanced ruling has been disposed off.  
 
Comment:  “SIKA Block Joining Mortar” is to be classified under Tariff Item 3214 90 90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and, therefore, taxable under Serial No. 24 of Schedule IV vide Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 under CGST Act, 2017 and 1125-FT, dated 28-6-2017 under WBGST Act, 2017.

Prepared by:Himanshu Bhimani
 
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