AAAR can’t classify product is made from Waste of Sugar or not [Read Order]

The Maharashtra Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) ruled that c can not classify products made from waste of sugar or not.

The Appellant, Madhurya Chemicals is engaged in manufacturing and marketing a product called ‘Shatamrut Chyavan’ which is a supplementary product, which increases the nutritional value of the molasses, and is known as compounded animal feed. The said product improves the production of milk and fat by the cattle and works towards increasing their immunity.

The Appellant from the beginning of the GST era since July 1, 2017 has classified his product under the Heading 2309 of the first Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as applicable to the GST, thereby availing exemption from the payment of GST in terms of SI. No. 102 of the Notification No. 2/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated June 28, 2017 of the CGST Act, 2017.

The applicant sought advance ruling on the issue whether the classification of ‘Shatamrut Chyavan’ falling under TSH 2309 90 10 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as adopted to GST attracting ‘NIL’ rate (0%) of IGST as per Sr. No. 102 of Notification No. 02/2017 – Central Tax (Rate), dated June 28, 2017 is correct or not.

The another issue raised was whether the goods falling under TSH 2309 90 10 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as adopted to GST can be treated as ‘waste of sugar manufacture, whether or not in the form of pellets under heading 2303’ attracting 5% of IGST as per Schedule I (Sr. No. 104) of Notification No. 01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017 or not.

The AAR ruled that the subject product involved in the application is rightly classified by the Appellant under chapter heading 2309, attracting ‘NIL’ rate as per SI. No. 102 of the Notification No. 02/2017 C.T. (Rate), dated June 28, 2017 and discarded the second question asked by the Appellant, stating that the same is not in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the Appellant, thereby, holding that the said question is outside the ambit of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act. 2017, and therefore, need not be answered.

Therefore, the coram consisting of Sanjeev Kumar and Rakesh Kumar Sharma upheld the ruling of the Maharashtra Authority of Advance Ruling.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. We welcome your comments at info@taxscan.in