Appellate Orders

The input credit of the Services of repair/ insurance/ maintenance used in respect of said vehicles with seating capacity up to 13 passengers, cannot be allowed.

The Authority dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by Advance Ruling Authority.

The Authority dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by Advance Ruling Authority.

The Authority upheld the order passed by Advance Ruling Authority.

The Authority upheld the order passed by Advance Ruling Authority.

In view of the foregoing, the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/102/2020 dated 14.10.2020 is confirmed to the extent it has been appeal against, by holding that the Integrated Goods and Services Tax was payable by the appellant M/s. SPX Flow Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. from 01.07.2017 to 31.01.2019 on supply of goods directly from the vendor’s premises located outside India in the non – taxable territory to the customer’s premises located at another place outside India in the non-taxable territory, without such goods entering into India.

The product narrow woven fabric of Polypropylene yarn of width not exceeding 30 cms provided with selvedges on both edges manufactured by the appellant merit classification under Tariff heading No. 58063990 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, attracting rate of GST @5% (2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST) or 5% IGST as per Sl. No. 219AA of Schedule-I of Notification No. 1/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended) and Notification No. 1/2017-IGST (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

In view thereof, we confirm the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/70/2020 dated 17.09.2020 of the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling in respect of Ruling No. 1 and 4 and reject the appeal filed by the appellant M/s. Stovec Industries Ltd. to that extent as discussed above in respect of said Ruling. We modify the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/70/2020 dated 17.09.2020  of the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling in respect of Ruling No. 2 and 3. We do not agree with the view of the GAAR ruling in respect of Question No.2 and rule that the recipient of service is located outside India i.e. SPA in terms of consideration paid to the appellant and not Indian Customer. Further in respect to Ruling No. 3, in view of the clarification given by the board (CBIC) vide Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST  dated 20.09.2021, it is ruled that the appellant is not an ‘intermediary’ in terms of provisions of Section 2(13) of IGST Act, 2017.

The product “fried - different shapes and sizes Papad” involved in the present case merit classification under Tariff heading No. 19059040 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and chargeable to 18% rate of Goods and Services Tax as per Sl. No. 16 of Schedule-III of Notification No. 1/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and Notification No. 1/2017-IGST (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

The product “fried - different shapes and sizes Papad” involved in the present case merit classification under Tariff heading No. 19059040 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and chargeable to 18% rate of Goods and Services Tax as per Sl. No. 16 of Schedule-III of Notification No. 1/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and Notification No. 1/2017-IGST (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.