TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nised System of Nomenclature, it is found that products supplied by the appellant are appropriately classifiable under Chapter Heading 9101 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Various arguments put forth by the appellant in their appeal are devoid of any merit and the advance ruling given by the GAAR does not suffer from any infirmity. The decision of AAR upheld. - GUJ/GAAAR/Appeal/2019/03 (In Application No. Appellate Advance Ruling/SGST & CGST/2018/AR/6) - - - Dated:- 28-2-2019 - AJAY JAIN AND DR. P.D. VAGHELA, MEMBER Present for the applicant : Shri Pravin Soni, Advocate Ms. Shilpaben Choksi, Proprietor Ms. Shilpaben Desai, Accountant The Appellant M/s. House of Marigold (Prop. Ms. Shilpa Sanjay Choksi) is engaged in supply of articles, consisting of gold, diamond, precious stones like ruby, emerald, sapphire, pearls etc., wherein a watch movement is fitted. The various kinds of such articles sold by the applicant along with watch are as under: (a) Butterfly with a ring (b) Bracelet (c) Bangle (d) Necklace (e) Ring 2. The appellant filed an application for advance ruling before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (herein after ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nothing further to state. 6.1 The appellant has submitted that Advance Ruling dated 10.10.2018 was received on 15.10.2018 and there has been delay of 21 days. It has been submitted that the GST Act being new law, they were not aware about the procedure to be followed for challenging the Advance Ruling. It has also been submitted that in view of the then ensuing Diwali festival, they were fully engrossed in business and therefore could not pay attention towards the filing of appeal. The appellant requested to condone the delay and admit the appeal. 6.2 There is delay of 21 days in filing of this appeal. We take into consideration the fact that the Goods and Services Tax is a new tax regime and there may be bona-fide mistake on the part of registered person. Therefore, the delay in filing of appeal in this case is condoned in exercise of the powers contained in proviso to the sub-section (2) of Section 100 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (herein after referred to as the CGST Act, 2017 ) and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (herein after referred to as the GGST Act, 2017 ). 7.1 The appellant have argued that the GAAR has erred in holding that ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2 It is observed that the very same contention was advanced by the appellant before the GAAR. The GAAR has noted the Rule 1 and Rule 3 of General Rules for the Interpretation of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and held that the product in question is specifically covered under heading 9101 in view of the terms of that heading read with the relevant Chapter Note, therefore, the product is not required to be classified in accordance with Rule 3(b) of the Rules of Interpretation . These findings of the GAAR have not been controverted by the appellant. We agree with the findings of GAAR in this regard. 9.1 In another argument made in the appeal, the appellant have submitted that the judgement of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Titan Industries Ltd. = 2017 (2) TMI 521 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . as well as the Determination Order under VAT Act passed in the case of the appellant clearly supports the contention of the appellant relating to the essential character of the products and therefore these decisions have been wrongly ignored. It is also submitted that the reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the lower authorities had overlooked the fact that CSH 9101.00 was confined to watches which had cases wholly of precious metal, alone. It was further argued that their watches were expensive not because of their superiority as time keeping devices but because of their ornamental value. It was also submitted that items like a table stand, a pen, or an instrument panel which might incorporate a time keeping device were not classified under Chapter 91; that on the same analogy their watches had to be classified as jewellery. It was also claimed that the Department had not discharged its onus to prove that the item was watch and not jewellery. They argued that the essential character of the article was as an item of jewellery and not as a time keeping device, therefore, applying Rule 3(b) of rules of interpretation, the product had to be classified as jewellery 10.2 In the said case of Titan Industries Ltd. (supra), the Hon ble CESTAT held that as per interpretative Rule 1 for classification of goods under CETA, 1985, the goods have to be classified in terms of the heading and any relative Section or Chapter Notes. Hon ble CESTAT observed that the argument that the subject watche ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant have relied upon the judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Orissa, Bhubaneswar Vs. Smt. Binapani Chakravarty [1995 AIR 1380] = 1995 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT . It has been argued that as per the common parlance meaning of the term jewellery , the articles sold by them are articles of jewellery. We find that the judgement referred by the appellant deals with Section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The issue involved in that case was whether only those items of jewellery which were studded with precious or semiprecious stones or whether all ornaments and jewellery made our of precious metals (such as gold, silver or platinum or alloys with precious metals) were excluded from exemption, although they might not be studded with precious or semi-precious stones. It is apparent that the issue involved in the present case is totally different and therefore the said judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 12. Therefore, we find that various arguments put forth by the appellant in their appeal are devoid of any merit and the advance ruling given by the GAAR does not suffer from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
