Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + AAR GST - 2025 (5) TMI AAR This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2025 (5) TMI 984 - AAR - GST


1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) were:

  • What is the correct Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) classification of "Blades" cleared as "Spare Parts" for use in Agricultural Machines, specifically Chaff Cutters used for cutting straw for preparing animal feed?
  • Whether these blades should be classified under Chapter Heading 8208 40 00 (Knives and cutting blades for agricultural, horticultural or forestry machines) attracting GST at 18%, as currently done by the applicant, or under Chapter Heading 8436 10 00 / 8436 80 90 (other agricultural machinery including machinery for preparing animal feeding stuffs) attracting GST at 12%, as practiced by manufacturers in other states?
  • Whether the blades qualify as parts of machines under Chapter 84 and thus fall under Section XVI, or as tools under Chapter 82 and Section XV, considering the relevant Chapter and Section Notes and the General Rules of Interpretation of the Customs Tariff applicable to GST classification?

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Correct HSN Classification of Blades as Spare Parts for Agricultural Machines

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The classification is governed by the GST Tariff Schedule, which adopts the Customs Tariff nomenclature, including HSN headings 8208 and 8436. The General Rules of Interpretation (Rules 1, 2, and 3) of the Customs Tariff apply, along with relevant Chapter and Section Notes, particularly Note 1(k) and Note 2 of Section XVI and Note 1(f) of Section XV. Precedents relied upon include:

  • Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Dunlop India Ltd. & Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., which emphasized that when an article is classifiable under a specific tariff item, it should not be consigned to a residuary clause.
  • CESTAT Northern Bench ruling in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III vs. Nice Steel Industries, which held that Chaff Cutter blades are specifically covered under heading 8208.40 and that specific headings override general ones.
  • Supreme Court decision in Westinghouse Saxby Farmer Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta, which clarified the application of Rules 2(b) and 3 of the General Rules of Interpretation, emphasizing the "most specific description" and "suitability for use" tests.
  • Other precedents such as Speedway Rubber Co. vs. CCE Chandigarh and Union of India vs. Garware Nylons Ltd. were cited to support the principle that the burden of proof lies on the taxing authority to disprove the classification claimed by the assessee, and that commercial usage and predominant use tests are relevant.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AAR examined the descriptions under HSN 8208 40 00 and 8436 10 00 / 8436 80 90. Heading 8208 covers knives and cutting blades for machines, including agricultural machines such as chaff cutters, while heading 8436 covers other agricultural machinery, including machinery for preparing animal feeding stuffs.

Applying Rule 1 of the Interpretative Rules, classification is primarily determined by the terms of the heading and relevant notes. Note 1(k) of Section XVI excludes articles of Chapter 82 or 83 from Section XVI, which covers Chapter 84. Since blades fall under Chapter 82, Note 2 of Section XVI, which governs parts of machines under Chapter 84, cannot be invoked to classify blades under Chapter 84.

The AAR further relied on the Explanatory Notes of HSN, which explicitly mention that blades for agricultural machines such as root cutters and straw cutters fall under heading 8208.40. The blades in question, being unmounted cutting blades used in chaff cutters, fit squarely within this description.

Key evidence and findings: The applicant submitted that the blades are metal cutting blades with holes for fitting to chaff cutter machines and are used solely for cutting straw for animal feed. They also highlighted that manufacturers in other states classify identical blades under heading 8436, attracting a lower GST rate of 12%, causing a competitive disadvantage.

The jurisdictional officer's comments supported classification under heading 8208 40 00, noting that a blade alone cannot perform the function of the machine and that blades are specifically covered under heading 8208.

Application of law to facts: The AAR applied Rule 1 of the General Rules of Interpretation, giving precedence to the specific description under heading 8208.40 over the general machinery description under heading 8436. The exclusion under Note 1(k) of Section XVI was decisive in rejecting classification under Chapter 84. The Explanatory Notes and judicial precedents reinforced this position.

Treatment of competing arguments: The applicant argued for classification under heading 8436 based on Note 2 of Section XVI and the "suitability for use" test, contending that blades are parts of the chaff cutter machine and thus should be classified with the machine. They relied on Supreme Court rulings that specific exclusions must be explicit and that parts suitable solely for a machine should be classified with that machine.

The AAR rejected this argument by applying Note 1(k) of Section XVI, which excludes articles of Chapter 82 from Section XVI, and by referring to the settled position in Nice Steel Industries and Dunlop India Ltd. that blades for agricultural machines are classifiable under heading 8208.40.

Conclusions: The blades are classifiable under heading 8208 40 00 as knives and cutting blades for agricultural machines, attracting GST at 18%. The classification under heading 8436 10 00 or 8436 80 90 is not tenable due to the specific exclusion in Note 1(k) of Section XVI and the established judicial precedents.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The AAR held:

"As discussed above, the blades are classifiable under Chapter Heading 8208 4000 and attract GST rate of 18%."

Core principles established include:

  • When an article is specifically covered under a tariff heading, it should not be classified under a more general or residuary heading.
  • Note 1(k) of Section XVI excludes articles of Chapter 82 from Section XVI, preventing classification of blades (Chapter 82) as parts of machines under Chapter 84.
  • The General Rules of Interpretation must be applied in conjunction with Chapter and Section Notes; specific notes override general rules.
  • The "suitability for use" test and "most specific description" rule apply only when no contrary specific exclusion exists.
  • The burden of proof lies on the taxing authority to disprove the classification claimed by the assessee, especially when supported by trade usage and affidavits.

In summary, the ruling confirms that blades used as spare parts for chaff cutters are knives and cutting blades for agricultural machines under heading 8208 40 00, attracting GST at 18%, and not parts of machinery under heading 8436, which attract 12% GST.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates