9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acked in a plastic pouch in quantity of 15 gm. The applicant also submitted a Tax Invoice issued by them, bearing No. GT/411 Dt. 24-02-2018 for gross value of Rs. 3920/- (Incl. tax CGST @2.5% and SGST @2.5%, collected separately) for supply of goods namely 'POPCORN' and raised the following question for advance ruling in their application:- "Classification, under which Schedule/Sr. No./Chapter heading/Sub heading/tariff Item (HSN) the rate of CGST/SGST would be applicable on the supply made by the applicant on [J.J.'s] Popcorn, vide Tax Invoice No. GT/411 Dt. 24-02-2018?" 2. The applicant has submitted that in their opinion, Sr. No. 50 of Schedule I of Notification No.1/2017 CENTRAL TAX (Rate) Dated 28-6-2017 would be most appropriate one and thus, the product Maize/Popcorn put up in unit container and bearing a registered brand name [J.J.'s] POPCORN would attract 2.5% CGST and 2.5% SGST. Schedule I of Notification No.1/2017 CENTRAL TAX (Rate) Dated 28-6-2017 with an amendment made therein vide Notification No.27/2017-Central Tax (Rate) Dt.22-9-2017, is reproduced as follows: SCHEDULE I - 2.5% S.No. Chapter / Heading / Sub-heading / Tariff item Description of Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is applicable squarely to the present case also. The applicant contended that this case directly dealt with by Hon. Guj. H. C. on the issue of interpretation of the term CEREARL as it stood in the entry, at Entry No. 2 of Sch. I of The Gujarat Sales Tax Act 1969, as 'Cereal and pulses in all forms and flour thereof except maize flour'. 5. The applicant further submitted that in view of the above cited two judgments it is very clear and it can beyond doubt be interpreted as and it would mean that (1) by addition of the above ingredients /masala after the process the form of grain can't be said to be changed, it still remains grain and (2) The change in shape due to process of heating also has no relevance, and, therefore, when MAIZE as a grain, even after undergoing the process of heating and addition of masala remains a grain, could very clearly be covered in Sr. No.50/Tariff item 1005 of Sch. I and would be liable to be taxed @2.5% CGST and @2.5% SGST. 6. The applicant also submitted that in case the above contention, for any reason, is not accepted they find another similar entry, at sr. No. 57, in the same Schedule I, under which the product can be covered, as the descript ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SUPREME COURT, has held as follows :- [12. In Collector of Central Excise, Shillong v. Wood Crafts Products Ltd. reported in (1995) 3 SCC 454 = 1995 (3) TMI 93 - SUPREME COURT, it was held by this Court that as expressly stated in the statements of objects and reasons of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the Central Excise Tariffs are based on the Harmonious System of Nomenclature (HSN) and the internationally accepted nomenclature was taken into account to reduce disputes on account of tariff classification. Accordingly, for resolving any dispute relating to tariff classification, a safe guide is the internationally accepted nomenclature emerging from the Harmonious System of Nomenclature (HSN). Although, the decision in the case of Woodcraft Products (supra) dealt with the interpretation of the provisions of the Central Excise Tariff there can be no doubt that the HSN Explanatory Notes are a dependable guide even while interpreting the Customs Tariff.] 10. It is observed that the product in question i.e. 'POP CORN' is manufactured from raw corn/maize grains, by heating in an electric machine/oven at the temperature of 1800 to 2000 centigrade and due to the heat so given to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied in the headings of this Chapter are to be classified in those headings only if grains are present, whether or not in the ear or on the stalk'. Since the applicant's product loses the presence of grain in it, it does not deserve to be classified in that heading. (b) The applicant contended that its product is similar to parched rice and puffed rice. We see that vide entry at Sr. No. 95 of Schedule under Notification No.2/2017 CENTRAL TAX (Rate) Dated 28-6-2017, 'Puffed rice, commonly known as Muri, flattened or beaten rice, commonly known as Chira, parched rice, commonly known as khoi, parched paddy or rice coated with sugar or gur, commonly known as Murki' have been classified under Chapter Heading 1904. (c) The ratio of the Apex Court decision in the case of M/s Alladi Venkateshwaralu [(1978) 41 STC 394 (S.C)] = 1978 (2) TMI 184 - SUPREME COURT and the High Court Gujarat decision in the case of M/s Vadilal Wafers Company (S. T. Reference No.31 of 1980 Dt. 24-02-1982) cannot be applied here due to the fact that these decisions are not only in respect of a separate set of laws i.e. 'the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 and 'the Gujarat Sales Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
