TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1071
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the stipulated period of thirty days after the date of communication of Advance Ruling. The Appellant has prayed for condonation of delay on the ground of illness of one of its Directors, which was allowed and the matter heard. The Appellant supplies power solution products and is also a manufacturer of power backups and solar products, including uninterrupted power supply system (hereinafter referred to as "UPS"). The Appellant had approached the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling for classification of the supply of UPS along with the battery, and the WBAAR after Hearing the matter and examining the documents, vide its Ruling dated 21.03.2018, decided that: "The supply of UPS and Battery is to be considered as Mixed Supply w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h constitutes the predominant element of a composite supply and to which any other supply forming part of that composite supply is ancillary; Mixed supply defined under Clause (74) of Section 2 of GST Act, 2017- "mixed supply" means two or more individual supplies of goods or services, or any combination thereof, made in conjunction with each other by a taxable person for a single price where such supply does not constitute a composite supply. Illustration: A supply of a package consisting of canned foods, sweets, chocolates, cakes, dry fruits, aerated drinks and fruit juices when supplied for a single price is a mixed supply. Each of these items can be supplied separately and is not dependent on any other. It shall not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... GST Act. The main argument put forth by the appellant was that UPS cannot function without battery as such it is an integral part of UPS and hence it is naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with each other and hence the supply of static converter along with external battery should be construed as a composite supply and not a mixed supply. The Appellant cited following case laws while arguing the case: 1. T.I. Miller Ltd. vs Union of India and Another [1987 (31) ELT 344)] 2. Kerala State Electronics Dev. Corp. Ltd. Vs Collector of Central Excise, Cochin [1994 (71) ELT 508] 3. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Electronics and Controls [1998 (27) RLT 816 (CEGAT)] 4. Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers Co. Ltd. Vs Collect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w Delhi [2001(129) ELT 605 (Tri-LB)] in which the Hon'ble Tribunal relied upon the Harmonised System Committee's opinion that UPSS was classified under 8504 nothing that 'a sealed lead acid battery maintenance free' was one of the components of UPSS. This decision was approved by the Supreme Court of India while disposing of the matter of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central excise, Jaipur [2003 (152) ELT 35 SC] All the cases cited above were related to the Central Excise or Customs Acts and focused on the classification of UPS under Harmonised Tariff Head 8504 and there was nothing decisive which aids the Appellant to ascertain that the supply of static converter (UPS) and external storage battery is a composi....