Appellate Orders

Advance Ruling Pronounced by AAR upheld.  Appeal Dismissed.

Advance Ruling Pronounced by AAR upheld.  Appeal Dismissed.

Advance Ruling Pronounced by AAR upheld.  Appeal Dismissed.

Advance Ruling Pronounced by AAR upheld.  Appeal Dismissed.

The Maharasthra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling set aside the Advance Ruling No. GST-ARA-47/2019-20/B-33, dated 17.03.2020, pronounced by the MAAR. Further hold that the impugned goods, i.e., Metal Nuts with metrical threading, Metal Nuts without metrical threading, and Metal Spring Nuts, will be considered as parts of motor vehicles falling under Chapter Heading from 87.01 to 87.05, and accordingly will merit classification under the Tariff Item 8708 99 00, as purported by the Appellant. Thus, the subject Appeal filed by the Department is allowed. 

The Maharasthra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling upheld the Ruling passed by the MAAR vide Order No. GST-ARA-33/2019-20/B-40, dated 18.03.2020, wherein it was held that the subject product, involved in the application, was rightly classified by the Appellant under chapter heading 2309, attracting ‘NIL’ rate as per Sl. No. 102 of the Notification No. 02/2017 C.T. (Rate), dated 28.6.2017, while in respect of the second question as to whether  the impugned product can be treated as ‘waste of sugar manufacture, whether or not in the form of pellets under heading 2303’ attracting 5% of IGST (2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST) as per Schedule I (Sl. No. 104) to the Notification No. 01/2017 - Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017, it was held by the MAAR that the said question would not come under the purview of the Advance Ruling in terms of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, and therefore, is not liable to be answered. Thus, the appeal filed by the Appellant is, hereby, dismissed.

The Maharashtra Appellate Authority confirmed the Maharashtra Advance Ruling Autority Order by holding that  the sale of TDR/FSI would be leviable to GST under Heading 9972, at the rate of 18% (9% CGST + 9% SGST), as prescribed under the entry at Sl. No. 16 (iii) of Notification No. 11/2017 – Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-06-2017.

The Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling while upholding the ruling given by the Maharastra Advance Ruling Authority held that the Appellant will not be eligible to avail the ITC in respect of the lift installation charges paid to the lift contractor, in terms of section 16(2)(b) read with section 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017.

The Appellant Authority set aside the advance ruling issued by AAR, and hold that prize money/ stakes will not be subject to GST in the absence of any supply. Accordingly, the Applicant- Respondent is also not entitled to avail any ITC in accordance with the provisions of section 17 (2) of the CGST Act, 2017.

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, hereby, modify the AAR ruling to the extent that the supplies under question would not be considered as “Composite Supply” in terms of section 2(30) read with section 2(90) of the CGST Act, 2017.