9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncerned officer, the jurisdictional officer or the applicant within a period of six months from the date of the order. Provided that, no rectification which has the effect of enhancing the tax liability or reducing the amount of admissible input tax credit shall be made, unless the applicant or the appellant has been given an opportunity of being heard. 2. Under Section 103 (1) of the Act, this advance ruling pronounced by the Appellate Authority under Chapter XVII of the Act shall be binding only. (a) On the applicant who had sought it in respect of any matter referred to in sub-Section (2) of Section 97 for advance ruling; (b) On the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer in respect of the applicant. 3. Under Section 103 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posite Panel/Sheet is covered under HSN 3920 or HSN 7606 or 7610. 2. At the outset, it is made clear that the provisions of both the CGST Act and the TGST Act are identical except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to any dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the corresponding provision under the TGST Act. Further, for the purposes of this Advance Ruling, the expression 'GST Act' would be a common reference to both CGST Act and TGST Act. Brief facts of the case: 3.1 The applicant has submitted that he is engaged in manufacturing of Aluminium Composite Panel/Sheet, (hereinafter referred as "ACP Sheets"). In common parlance the product of the applican ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) dated 28th June,2017. 2. Rate of SGST and CGST applicable on the same 9% SGST and 9% CGST Details of Personal Hearing: 4. Personal Hearing was held on 17.02.2025. Shri Bharat M. Shah, Tax Practitioner, appeared on behalf of the applicant. The Tax practitioner reiterated the written submissions made in their application before the lower authority and requested to consider the same. Discussion and Findings: 5.1 1 This authority has carefully gone through the case records and submissions made by the applicant. 5.2 On perusal of the ruling of AAR, it is observed that State Member opined that the said commodity is neither plastic nor aluminum wholly and as such cannot be classified either as plastic or aluminum based on materials it con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... structures and parts of structures. Thereafter, following the decision of CESTAT in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Chennai Vs ICP India Pvt. Ltd. {2018 (7) TMI 546-CESTAT Chennai}, the Central Member has held the goods to be classifiable under Heading 7606. 5.4 We find that the classification of goods "Aluminum Composite Panels" has subsequently also been considered by the CESTAT. In the case of Alufit India Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs {(2024) 14 Centax 187 (Tri - Bangalore)}, the Tribunal has followed the decision in the case of ICP India Pvt Ltd. (supra). Similar view has been taken by the CESTAT in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs Chandan Exports {(2024) 15 Centax 74 (Tri - Ahmedabad)}. Further, in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
