2025 (4) TMI 223 - AAR - GST

Classification of rice husk board manufactured comprising of natural fibre rice husk powder calcium carbonate recycling waste other processing aid as well as PVC resin wherein PVC acts only s a bonding agent - to be classified as wood and articles of wood under chapter 44 attract 12% rate of GST or not? - HELD THAT - The applicant has provided a copy of the test report dated 23.12.2024 which confirms the contents of the rice husk board as has already mentioned in the application. However we find that the entire submission the contents of the product etc. exactly resembles the ruling IN RE M/S. PAPAKA HERBS SPICES PRIVATE LTD. 2020 (2) TMI 32 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING TAMILNADU to the teeth. It is difficult to believe that this is a coincidence. Even otherwise it is found that the test report dated 23.12.2024 though from a NABL accredited laboratory contains a remark that All above parameters are not covered/not accredited under NABL Scope of Accreditation . The test parameters nowhere state the BIS followed for arriving at the test result. The applicant it is felt should have provided the test report from a Government recognised laboratory as listed in the annexure to CBIC circular No. 43/2017-Customs dated 16.11.2017. The applicant has not provided copies of either the brochure copies of purchase invoice of inputs copies of sales invoices etc. The application os not maintainable.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question considered by the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) was whether the product manufactured by the applicant, namely the rice husk board composed of natural fibre (rice husk powder), calcium carbonate, recycling waste, processing aids, and PVC resin (used solely as a bonding agent), qualifies as "wood and articles of wood" under Chapter 44 of the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) and consequently attracts a GST rate of 12% as per serial no. 92 of notification No. 1/2017-CT(Rate).

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue: Classification of rice husk board under GST law as wood and articles of wood under Chapter 44

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The classification issue was examined in the context of the GST regime, specifically the CGST Act and GGST Act, which have largely identical provisions relevant to classification. The applicable tariff heading under the Customs Tariff Act (CTA) and the corresponding GST rate schedule were considered. The applicant sought classification under CTH 441193, which pertains to particle board and similar wood-based products, attracting GST at 12%.

The Authority also reviewed relevant Indian Standards (IS) for particle boards, namely IS 3087:2005 (medium density particle boards), IS 3129:1985 (low density particle boards), and IS 3478:1966 (high density particle boards), which specify materials and manufacturing processes for particle boards. These standards recognize the use of ligno-cellulosic agricultural residues such as rice husk as raw materials for particle boards, alongside timber and wood residues.

Additionally, the Authority referred to prior research by the Indian Plywood Industries Research Institute (IPIRI) undertaken in 1977, which developed particle boards using ligno-cellulosic agricultural residues like rice husk as substitutes for wood to conserve forest resources. This research, supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, established rice husk as a viable alternative raw material for particle board manufacture.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Authority analyzed the manufacturing process and composition of the rice husk board. The applicant's product contained 30% rice husk powder (natural fibre), 14% calcium carbonate, 18% recycling waste, 26% PVC resin (bonding agent), and other processing aids. The process involved pulverization of rice husk, mixing with additives and PVC resin, extrusion, and calibration to produce boards of specified dimensions and thickness.

The Authority noted that under the BIS standards, particle boards made from ligno-cellulosic materials including rice husk are recognized as substitutes for wood-based boards. The presence of PVC resin as a binder did not disqualify the product from being considered a particle board resembling wood articles, provided the natural fibre was the dominant raw material, which was the applicant's claim.

However, the Authority observed that the applicant's test report from a NABL-accredited laboratory contained disclaimers that the parameters tested were not covered under NABL's scope of accreditation and did not specify compliance with any BIS standards. This raised concerns about the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence provided to establish the product's classification.

Furthermore, the Authority found that the applicant failed to provide supporting documentation such as brochures, purchase invoices of raw materials, and sales invoices, which would have substantiated the product's composition and commercial character.

The Authority also noted a striking similarity between the applicant's submission and a prior ruling (No. 54/ARA/2019) involving a similar product, suggesting possible replication rather than independent evidence.

Key evidence and findings: The applicant's manufacturing details, composition percentages, and process description; the NABL laboratory test report dated 23.12.2024; the BIS standards for particle boards; prior research by IPIRI; absence of corroborative commercial documents; and the similarity with prior rulings.

Application of law to facts: While the product's composition and manufacturing process aligned with recognized particle board standards that include agricultural residues such as rice husk, the lack of reliable and accredited testing evidence, absence of supporting commercial documentation, and procedural deficiencies led the Authority to question the maintainability of the application for advance ruling.

Treatment of competing arguments: The applicant argued that the rice husk board is essentially a wood substitute and should be classified under Chapter 44, attracting 12% GST. The Authority acknowledged the technical feasibility and precedent for such classification but emphasized the need for credible, accredited test reports and documentary proof to substantiate the claim. The Authority rejected the adequacy of the applicant's evidence and found the application non-maintainable.

Conclusions: The Authority concluded that due to insufficiency and inadequacy of evidence, the application for advance ruling was non-maintainable and did not proceed to a substantive classification determination.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"We hold the application to be non-maintainable in view of our findings mentioned supra."

The Authority established that classification of a product under GST requires credible and accredited evidence demonstrating its composition and manufacturing process in accordance with recognized standards. Mere assertion of raw material dominance and similarity to prior rulings is insufficient.

The ruling underscores the principle that advance ruling applications must be supported by complete and verifiable documentation, including accredited laboratory test reports compliant with relevant BIS standards and commercial records evidencing the product's nature and inputs.

The final determination was that the application could not be entertained due to procedural and evidentiary deficiencies, thereby denying the advance ruling on classification under Chapter 44 and the applicable GST rate.