TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provisions under the MGST Act. The present appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as "the CGST Act and MGST Act"] by M/s. Taraltec Solutions Private Limited (herein after referred to as the "Appellant") against the Advance Ruling No. GST-ARA-47/2017-18/B-54 dated 22.06.2018 = 2018 (10) TMI 682 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE A. The Appellant are manufacturers of Reactor, which is a part of Hand Pump, used in villages to extract water below the earth surface. B. The reactor m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that - fit is found that applicant has not submitted any material/documents like the product catalogue, brochure, diagram or any other relevant material to ascertain the nature and function of products." 3. The above is not factually correct. Actually, in response to the request made by the concerned officer, we had submitted required documents on 2 nd May, 2018. 4. In paragraph "Additional written submission dated 27.03.2018 by the Department, it is stated that in sub-para 4 that "the applicant has further stated that other application of the reactor in pipe line are: (i) to be fitted for wells, ponds, lakes etc. to motorized pipelines; (ii) to be fitted in building with overhead tank; (iii) swimming pool/fountain; (iv) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before the Advance Ruling Authority. The departmental officer, represented by the Asstt. Commissioner, CGST, Div. VII, Mumbai East, opposed the arguments of the Appellant. Discussions and Findings 9. We have gone through the submissions made by the appellant and the respondent along with the ruling pronounced by the Advance Ruling Authority. On perusal of the appeal and submissions made by the appellant as well as the respondents in the instant case, the question before us to decide is, whether the Reactor manufactured by the Appellant (herein after referred to us "the impugned product") can be considered as parts of the hand pumps or otherwise. 10. First of all, we would like to discuss the nature, design and functions of the imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the hand pump is controvertible and self -contradicting and thus, not tenable as the hand pump system is completely different from the motorized water line arrangement/system in terms of functioning, nature and design. 12. While the Appellant's submission, that their product is meant for poor masses of rural India located in villages and that their product has acclaimed honour from various state governments and also from the Prime Minister's Office in India for being an innovative product, is in itself commendable, yet under the GST law the classification of any commodity is not governed by such factors, but by the nature, design, character, and function of the article. The argument of the appellant therefore does not have any ....