In a recent ruling of Application for Advance ( AAR) ruling it was decided that Adjudication and Advance Ruling should be treated Independent of Each Other.
An appeal was filed by the appellant M/s Float Glass Centre under section 100 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Goods & Services Tax Act 2017 and Central Goods & Services Act 2017. The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Tamil Nadu State Authority for Advance ruling on the Application for Advance ruling ( AAR ) filed by the Appellant.
The appellant was engaged in the import and trading of glass products, described by them as clear float glass with absorbent layer. They had submitted an application requesting for determination of correct classification of “Clear Float Glass.”
Get a Copy of Learn the Essentials of Sections 269 and 271, Click here
The AAR had arrived at a decision that the “clear float glass” would be classified under the tariff sub heading 7005 21 as ‘other.’ Aggrieved by this decision the appellant had filed the appeal.
The appellant had prayed the Hon’ble AAR to set aside the impugned order and to hold the product ‘Clear Float Glass’ having absorbent layer on one side to merit classification under CTH 7005 1090.
During the hearing of the appellant , his representative Adv.M.Hari Radhakrishnan submitted that both the tariff 7005 1090 and 7005 2990 attract different rates of duty under Customs law. During the hearing the appellant submitted that the application for advance ruling was not discussed in the ruling given by AAR.
The appeal was filed as a result of the dispute in classification of the product ‘Clear Float Glass’ under CTH 7005 2910, if tinted, and under CTH 7005 2990, if non tinted, by the AAR. The appellant contended that the product may rightly be benefited from the merits classification under CTH 7005 1090.
Get a Copy of Learn the Essentials of Sections 269 and 271, Click here
The appellant argued that the circular issued by Central board of excise and customs on adjudication of Show Cause Notices stated that, the adjudication of admitted DAP/AP’s should be undertaken after ensuring that the reply given by the ministry (CBEC) is available on record, which isn’t in the present case.
The court submitted that, hence they aren’t required to comment on an adjudication proceeding undertaken by a different authority. The circular is applicable to only cases involving transaction specific adjudications and not to cases of advance rulings which are classificatoryṣ.
The quasi judicial body comprising Ashish Varma and D Jagannathan observed that advanced ruling are independent fro adjudication in nature. The advance rulings provide clarity while adjudication is the process of assessing tax liabilities. And it was clearly addressed in the case.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
