Authority Declines Rulings on Stainless Steel Cans & More

The authority declined to provide advance rulings on the classification of stainless steel cans, flavored milk, milk cream, and cold coffee due to various reasons such as the applicant's status as a recipient, connection to a dismissed case, and lack of sufficient information. Additionally, it was ruled that the provision of subsidized lunch and refreshments to employees by paying part of the cost does not constitute a supply under the CGST Act 2017.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Stainless Steel Cans (40 liters capacity)
2. Classification of Flavored Milk
3. Classification of Milk Cream
4. Classification of Cold Coffee
5. Provision of Subsidized Lunch and Refreshments to Employees

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Stainless Steel Cans (40 liters capacity):
The applicant sought to classify stainless steel cans under HSN code 7310 or 7323. However, since the applicant is the recipient and not the supplier of these cans, the authority ruled that it cannot provide an advance ruling on this issue. According to Section 95(a) of the CGST Act 2017, advance rulings can only be sought by suppliers regarding the supply of goods or services they undertake or propose to undertake. Therefore, this issue is beyond the jurisdiction of the authority.

2. Classification of Flavored Milk:
The applicant's request for an advance ruling on the classification of flavored milk was dismissed. The authority referenced a previous ruling involving the Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Limited, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Karnataka, due to suppressed facts of a pending investigation. Since the applicant is part of the same federation and produces the same branded product (Nandini flavored milk), the authority ruled that it could not provide a ruling on this issue.

3. Classification of Milk Cream:
The applicant sought to classify milk cream under HSN code 0403. However, the authority noted that the classification could vary based on the method of production and additional product details, which the applicant failed to provide. Despite requests for more information, the applicant did not furnish adequate details about the production process, concentration, added ingredients, or flavoring. Thus, no ruling was given due to a lack of sufficient information.

4. Classification of Cold Coffee:
The applicant sought to classify cold coffee under HSN code 0402 99 90. The authority found this question similar to the second issue regarding flavored milk, with the only difference being the coffee flavor. Consequently, for the same reasons stated in the ruling for flavored milk, no ruling was given on the classification of cold coffee.

5. Provision of Subsidized Lunch and Refreshments to Employees:
The applicant provides lunch and refreshments to its employees through a contractor, paying part of the cost and collecting a subsidized amount from the employees. The contractor charges GST at 5% under HSN code 9963. The authority ruled that the applicant’s activity of paying part of the canteen bill on behalf of the employees does not amount to a supply of goods or services. Therefore, this activity does not constitute a supply under Section 7(1) of the CGST Act 2017.

Ruling:
i) No advance ruling on the classification of stainless steel cans as the applicant is the recipient, not the supplier.
ii) No ruling on the classification of flavored milk due to the applicant's connection to a previously dismissed case.
iii) No ruling on the classification of milk cream due to insufficient information.
iv) No ruling on the classification of cold coffee for the same reasons as flavored milk.
v) The provision of subsidized lunch and refreshments does not amount to a supply under the CGST Act 2017.

---