TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rieved with the remarks of the lower authority in Para 4 of the Ruling of the authority, which according to them affect their entitlement to the exemption under Notification No. 2/2017-C.t.(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended. We find that the lower authority has not observed/ruled on the eligibility of exemption to their product in the Ruling under appeal. We also find that the Lower Authority has ruled on the classification of the product manufactured by the appellant, which is not under dispute, therefore as per the provisions of Section 100(1) of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017 no appeal, per se lies before this Authority. It is further clear that the issue dealt with was not whether the product manufactured by the appellant is Kalava or not or for that matter, the ruling do not delve on what makes a kalava and how the product is not a kalava . In as much as the issue raised before the lower authority do not involve the above and factually the lower authority has not dealt with the above, we find justice best served by expunging of the above remarks of the lower authority in the ruling. The remarks of the lower authority may be treated as expunged/deleted - The ruling of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed under Section 100(1) of the Tamilnadu Goods Services Tax Act 2017/Central Goods Services Tax Act 2017 (hereinafter referred to the Act ) by Malli Ramalingam Mothilal, No. 2/3-A, Saratha Illam, A.A. Road, CMR Road, Munichalai Road, Madurai (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant). The appeal is filed against the Order No. 12/AAR/2019 dated 13.04.2019 = 2019 (5) TMI 1038 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU passed by the Tamilnadu State Authority for Advance ruling on the application for advance ruling filed by the appellant. 2. The Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Kalava Raksha Sutra (Sacred Thread) in different colours and are selling the same in Kilograms/lengths to the Intra-State buyers as well as Inter-State buyers. They are registered under GST vide Registration No. 33AATPM2415J1ZL. They had sought advance ruling on the Classification of the Commodity Kalava Raksha Sutra (Sacred Thread) manufactured and supplied by them 3. The Original authority for Advance Ruling has ruled as follows: Braided textile yarns supplied by the applicant made of polypropylene yarn is classifiable under 56074900, made of other synthetic yarn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... weight or lengths to their buyers who in turn further merely cut into various sizes to suit their individual buyers. This does not mean and can be concluded that the kalava raksha sutra manufactured and sold by the Appellant in loose rolls in large quantity are not kalava raksha mentioned in, under serial number 148 under item IX under the head Pooja samagiri in notification no.2/2017.(Rate) and not eligible for exemption under the GST Act. The Authority for Advance Ruling failed to appreciate the relevant entry and wordings of the Kalava raksha sutra mentioned in the serial number 148 under item IX under the head Pooja samagiri in notification no.2/2017(rate). The Authority of Advance Ruling wrongly presumed that Kalava Raksha Sutra to be sold in sizes to be eligible for exemption and further failed to note the fact that the wearer of Kalava Raksha Sutra may use it in different parts of the human body and the same may require different lengths. The appellant s product Kalava Raksha Sutra is a product manufactured out of using dyed P.P. Yarn or dyed cotton yarn or dyed polyester yarns which were braided together by using braiding machine. In Tamil Nadu it has been called ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter dated 25.05.2019 requested to re-fix the hearing due to personal reasons. Another opportunity was extended for hearing on 20.06.2019. The appellant vide their letter dated 12.06.2017 sought adjournment and requested to be heard during last week of July. Accordingly, the appellant was granted personal hearing on 26.07.2019. Shri. M.R.Mothilal, the appellant, S/Shri M. Arunkumar and A. Chandrasekaran, Advocates and authorized representatives of the appellant appeared. They produced samples of their product and Tax invoice copies relating to purchase of raw materials and Bill of Supply raised by them. They stated that they do not dispute the classification of the product as decided by the Original Authority.; The dispute is on the eligibility of exemption as per Notification No. 2/2017-C.T.(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended.; The said Notification at SI.No. 148 exempt Pooja Samagiri -Kalava Sutra falling under Any Chapter . They further stated that they are not direct sellers. They sell Kalava by Weight / Lengths. They claimed that mis-use/mis-interpretation cannot be a reason for not extending the exemption. 7. It was observed from the Samples produced before us tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch under CGST and SGST whereas the fee payable is ₹ 10000/- each under CGST and SGST Acts. The appellant has paid the further amount of ₹ 5000/- each under CGST and SGST on 15.05.2019. Though the appeal in ARA-02 is filed by the Appellant within the Statutory period, the same has been filed incomplete, in as much as the application stands filed without the statutory fees prescribed in the Rules. As per proviso to Section 100(2), the Appellate Authority if satisfied that the appellant was prevented by a sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the appeal period of thirty days can allow it to be presented within a further period not exceeding thirty days. In the case at hand, the appeal is filed within the statutory period though incomplete which has been made good within the further period of thirty days provided in the said proviso. Hence the lacuna is condoned and the appeal is taken up on merits. 10.0 On merits, it is seen that the appellant, in the application filed before the Lower Authority, has sought the classification (HSN Code) of their manufactured product which according to them is Kalava Raksha Sutra . The Lower authority on examination of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 100(1) of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017 no appeal, per se lies before this Authority. 10.3 The grievance of the appellant is on the remarks of the Lower authority and the silent implication it makes. The remark of the lower authority is not in the context of the issue raised in the original application. The lower authority has not substantiated the remarks with any material evidence/findings or it has been brought out that the issue of whether the product is a Kalava or not was to be considered to arrive at the classification of the product sought for before them. It is further clear that the issue dealt with was not whether the product manufactured by the appellant is Kalava or not or for that matter, the ruling do not delve on what makes a kalava and how the product is not a kalava . In as much as the issue raised before the lower authority do not involve the above and factually the lower authority has not dealt with the above, we find justice best served by expunging of the above remarks of the lower authority in the ruling. 11. In view of the above discussions, we rule as under Ruling The remarks of the lower authority in Para 4 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
