Appeal dismissed for not meeting statutory time limit under CGST Act Section 100.

The appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed as it was deemed not maintainable. The Appellate Authority held that the rejection of the Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application was not appealable under Section 100 of the CGST Act. The appeal should have been filed against the original advance ruling within the statutory period of 30 days, which had expired. The Appellate Authority lacked the authority to condone delays beyond the statutory limits.

---

---

Issues Involved
1. Classification of royalty paid in respect of Mining Lease under GST.
2. Taxability of statutory contributions made to District Mineral Foundation (DMF) and National Mineral Exploration Trust (NMET) under GST.
3. Admissibility of the appeal against the rejection of the Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application.

Detailed Analysis

1. Classification of Royalty Paid in Respect of Mining Lease Under GST
The Appellant sought clarification on whether the royalty paid for a mining lease can be classified as "Licensing services for Right to use minerals including its exploration and evaluation" under heading 9973, attracting GST at the same rate as applicable on the supply of like goods involving the transfer of title in goods. The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) ruled that the royalty paid is part of the consideration for licensing services and is taxable at the rate applicable on the supply of like goods involving transfer of title in goods up to 31.12.2018 and at 9% CGST and 9% SGST from 01.01.2019 under the residual entries of Serial No. 17 of Notification No.11/2017-Central Tax dated 28.06.2017.

2. Taxability of Statutory Contributions to DMF and NMET Under GST
The Appellant also questioned whether statutory contributions to DMF and NMET amount to "Supply" and whether they are liable for GST under reverse charge. The AAR ruled that these contributions are part of the consideration for licensing services for the right to use minerals, including exploration and evaluation, and are therefore taxable. The supply includes royalty, DMF, and NMET contributions, and the liability to pay tax is on the recipient of such services under the reverse charge mechanism as per Serial No. 5 of Notification No.13/2017-Central Tax dated 28.06.2017.

3. Admissibility of the Appeal Against the Rejection of the ROM Application
The Appellant filed an application for rectification of mistake (ROM) in the advance ruling order, arguing that the AAR did not rule on whether contributions to DMF and NMET amount to supply under Section 7 of the CGST Act and that the payments were considered as a single transaction instead of two different transactions. The ROM application was rejected by the AAR, stating no error/mistake was apparent on record. The Appellant then filed an appeal against this rejection.

The Appellate Authority examined whether the appeal against the ROM rejection order is maintainable. According to Section 100 of the CGST Act, an appeal can be made against an advance ruling pronounced under Section 98(4) of the Act. The ROM rejection order does not merge with the original advance ruling, and the appeal should have been filed against the original advance ruling within the statutory period of 30 days. The Appellate Authority held that the appeal against the ROM rejection order is not maintainable, as it is not an appealable order under Section 100 of the CGST Act. The statutory time limit for filing an appeal against the original advance ruling had expired, and the Appellate Authority is not empowered to condone any delay beyond what the statute permits.

Conclusion
The appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed on the grounds that it is not maintainable. The ROM rejection order does not merge with the original advance ruling, and the appeal should have been filed against the original advance ruling within the statutory period. The Appellate Authority does not have the power to condone delays beyond the statutory limits.

---