2019 (3) TMI 1073 - AAAR - GST

Dismissed appeal: Advance ruling not maintainable for past transactions; electric cables didn't meet concessional rate criteria.

IN RE: KEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED

IN RE: KEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED - 2019 (23) G.S.T.L. 74 (App. A. A. R. - GST) Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for concessional rate under Notification No. 03/2017-CT for electric cables supplied.2. Maintainability of the advance ruling application for past transactions.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for Concessional Rate under Notification No. 03/2017-CT:Appellant’s Arguments:- The Appellant, engaged in manufacturing and supplying power cables, supplied electric cables to Vedanta for its petroleum operations.- The Appellant argued that these cables qualify as 'material', 'accessories', 'consumables', and/or 'stores' under Sl. No. 1 of Notification No. 03/2017-CT, thereby eligible for a concessional rate.- The Appellant highlighted that the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons (DGH) certified the necessity of these cables for petroleum operations, which should suffice for the concessional rate.AAR’s Findings:- Electric cables are not explicitly mentioned in entries 1 to 23 of the Notification No. 03/2017-CT.- Entry 24 restricts accessories, stores, materials, or consumables to those related to goods specified in entries 1 to 23.- The Appellant did not specify that the cables would be used exclusively with machines listed in entries 1 to 23.- The cables are general-purpose and not specific to any particular machine used by Vedanta.- The Appellant failed to clarify under which category (accessories, stores, materials, or consumables) the electric cables fall.Appellate Authority’s Ruling:- The Appellate Authority found that the Appellant’s cables did not meet the criteria for entry 24 of the Notification as they were not exclusively used with machines listed in entries 1 to 23.- The Authority noted that the Appellant did not restrict the use of cables to the specified goods, a prerequisite for the concessional rate.2. Maintainability of the Advance Ruling Application for Past Transactions:Appellant’s Arguments:- The Appellant contended that the application was admissible as the supply included ongoing warranty services, making it a continuing supply.- The Appellant cited various judgments to argue that the question of maintainability should not be raised at a belated stage, especially after the application has been admitted and decided on merits.Appellate Authority’s Findings:- The Authority emphasized that advance rulings are limited to transactions being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken, as per Section 95(a) of the CGST Act.- The supply in question was completed in January 2018, whereas the application was filed in May 2018, making it outside the scope of advance ruling.- The Authority rejected the argument that ongoing warranty services extend the transaction to the date of filing the application.- The Authority maintained that it has the power to revisit the maintainability of the application even if the AAR had admitted it initially.Final Ruling:- The Appellate Authority concluded that no ruling could be given as the question posed by the Appellant related to supplies undertaken prior to the date of filing the application for advance ruling.Conclusion:- The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the advance ruling application was not maintainable for past transactions, and the electric cables did not qualify for the concessional rate under Notification No. 03/2017-CT.