Appeal Rejected for Filing Delay & Procedural Non-Compliance

The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal due to a delay in filing beyond the permissible limit and non-compliance with procedural requirements. The authority did not address the merits of the appeal regarding the classification of henna powder under the GST Tariff.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Henna/Mehendi powder under GST Tariff.
2. Delay in filing the appeal and condonation of delay.
3. Procedural compliance regarding the payment of appeal fees and filing in the prescribed format.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Henna/Mehendi Powder under GST Tariff:
The appellant, a manufacturer of hair dye powder, sought clarification on whether henna is classifiable under Chapter 14 or 33 of the GST Tariff. The Advance Ruling Authority (AAR) ruled that Mehendi/Henna powder falls under Chapter 33, attracting GST at 18%. The appellant contended that henna powder, being a vegetable product, should be classified under Chapter 14, which covers "vegetable products not elsewhere specified or included," and thus attract a lower GST rate of 5%. The appellant argued that henna powder is a natural product obtained by grinding henna leaves without any additional processing, and it is predominantly used for beautifying hands and feet, not as a hair dye. The appellant further cited historical classification under Chapter 14 and various legal precedents supporting their claim.

2. Delay in Filing the Appeal and Condonation of Delay:
The appellant received the Advance Ruling on 18.05.2020 and filed the appeal online on 17.06.2020, within the 30-day period stipulated under Section 100(2) of the CGST Act. However, due to technical issues, the appellant paid the SGST fee on 15.06.2020 but could not pay the CGST fee until 22.10.2020. The appeal in the prescribed format was filed on 02.11.2020. The Appellate Authority noted that the last date for filing the appeal was extended to 31.08.2020 due to COVID-19, but the complete appeal was filed beyond this date, resulting in a 63-day delay. The authority emphasized that they could only condone a delay of up to 30 days, and thus, the delay in this case was beyond their discretionary power.

3. Procedural Compliance Regarding Payment of Appeal Fees and Filing in Prescribed Format:
The appellant argued that the delay in paying the CGST fee and filing the appeal in the prescribed format were procedural lapses. The Appellate Authority, however, held that payment of the appeal fee and filing in the prescribed format are mandatory requirements under Section 100(3) of the CGST Act. The authority found no evidence that the appellant made efforts to resolve the technical issues promptly. The cited case laws regarding non-payment of court fees were deemed not applicable as they did not address the issue of late filing of appeals.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Authority rejected the condonation application and the appeal due to the delay in filing beyond the permissible limit and non-compliance with procedural requirements. Consequently, the authority did not discuss the merits of the appeal regarding the classification of henna powder.

---