Advance ruling application denied due to lack of specific details on custom-made vehicles

The application for advance ruling was rejected as the applicant failed to provide specific information and documentary evidence regarding the proposed supply of the vehicles in question. The authority emphasized the need for detailed information about the nature, features, and intended purposes of custom-made vehicles for accurate classification, which was lacking in this case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Garbage Compactor and Hook Loader/Garbage Tipper under Chapter Heading 8705 or 8704.
2. Determination of applicable GST rate for the aforementioned vehicles.
3. Admissibility of the application for advance ruling based on the current and proposed manufacturing activities.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Garbage Compactor and Hook Loader/Garbage Tipper:
The applicant contended that the Garbage Compactor and Hook Loader/Garbage Tipper should be classified under Chapter Heading 8705, which pertains to "Special purpose motor vehicles other than those principally designed for the transport of persons or goods." The applicant argued that these vehicles are designed specifically for garbage collection and disposal, featuring automated loading, compaction, and unloading mechanisms, which distinguish them from general goods transport vehicles classified under Chapter Heading 8704. They cited various case laws to support their argument that garbage does not qualify as "goods" due to its lack of marketability and intrinsic value.

2. Determination of Applicable GST Rate:
The applicant sought clarification on whether the vehicles in question attract IGST at 18% as per Sl.No.401A of Schedule III of Notification No.01/2017 Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, and CGST and SGST at the rate of 9% respectively. They emphasized that their products should fall under Chapter Heading 8705, which covers special purpose motor vehicles, and not under Chapter Heading 8704, which pertains to motor vehicles for the transport of goods and attracts a higher GST rate of 28%.

3. Admissibility of the Application for Advance Ruling:
The applicant sought an advance ruling for proposed transactions, asserting that they plan to supply these vehicles from their unit in Tamil Nadu. However, the jurisdictional authorities reported that the applicant had not received any orders for such vehicles and that these vehicles are custom-made to order. The applicant failed to provide documentary evidence, such as purchase orders or tenders, to substantiate their claim of future supply. The authority noted that without specific details about the vehicles' features and intended purposes, it is not feasible to classify the products accurately. Consequently, the application was deemed inadmissible for consideration on merits.

Conclusion:
The application for advance ruling was rejected due to the lack of specific information and documentary evidence regarding the proposed supply of the vehicles in question. The authority emphasized that the classification of custom-made vehicles requires detailed information about their nature, features, and intended purposes, which the applicant failed to provide.

---