TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 894
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pargaon, Dist - Ahmednagar, 423601. ("the Appellant") against the Advance Ruling No. GST-ARA-33/2019-201B-40, dated 18.03.2020. = 2020 (7) TMI 510 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA, pronounced by the Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling (herein after referred to as MAAR). The said Appeal has been filed along with the application for the condonation of delay of 30 days from the due date as prescribed under proviso to Section 100(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Appellant has attributed the said delay to the closure of their offices on account of the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic situation. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 3.1 The Appellant is engaged in manufacturing and marketing a product called Shatamrut Chyavan' which is a supplementary product, which increases the nutritional value of the molasses, and known as 'compounded animal feed'. The said product improves the production of milk and fat by the cattle and works towards increasing their immunity. 3.2 The Appellant from the beginning of the GST era since 01.07.2017 has classified his product under the Heading 2309 of the first Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as applicable to the GST, thereby availing exemptio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Galactogogue, anti - stress, stimulates and increasing process of milk formation Nagarmotha liver tonic and digestive Kamboji Galactogogue, anti - stress, stimulates and increasing process of milk formation Guduchi liver tonic and digestive Amala Anti - stress, immunity booster and rich source of Vitamin C 3.6 Based on the above stated facts, the Appellant had applied for the Advance Ruling before the MAAR in respect of the two questions mentioned below: A. Whether the classification of Shatamrut Chyavan' falling under TSH 2309 90 10 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as adopted to GST attracting 'NEL" rate (0%) of IGST, (0%) CGST + (0%) SGST) as per Sr. No. 102 of Notification No. 02/2017 - Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017 is correct or not? B. Whether the goods falling under TSH 2309 90 10 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as adopted to GST can be treated as 'waste of sugar manufacture, whether or not in the form of pellets under heading 2303' attracting 5% of IGST (2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST) as per Schedule I (Sr. No. 104) of Notification No. 01/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 or not? 3.7 The MAAR vide the Order No. GST-ARA-33/201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... - Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017, is correct. The taxpayer is engaged in supply of 'Shatamrut Chyavan' which is a complete animal feed supplement for cattle & ruminants to improve milk & milk fat and increasing resistance to diseases. 5.2 That CBIC Circular No. 80/54/2018- GST, dated 31.12.2018 issued on the subject of the clarification of the GST rates and classification of goods stipulates that while deciding the classification of product claimed as animal feed supplements, it may he necessary to ensure that the said animal feed supplement are ordinarily or commonly known to the trade as products for a specific use in animal feeding. HS Code 2309 would cover only such products, which in the form supplied, are capable of specific use as food supplement for animal and not capable of any general use. 5.3 As the product brochure, leaf-let and online company product advertisement show that it is a complete food supplement used for cattle feed only, and no other use of the product. Though the product is not used in isolation for feeding the cattle, the end use of product is as cattle feed only. As per SI. No. 102 of the Notification No. 2/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28.06.2017....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ONAL HEARING 6. The personal hearing in the matter was held on 05.11.2020, which was attended by Shri Vidhyadhar S. Apte, Advocate, as the representative of the Appellant, and by Shri Abhijeet Padekar, Assistant Commissioner, as the Jurisdictional officer/Respondent, in the subject appeal matter. 6.1 During the course of the said hearing, Shri Apte first requested to condone the delay of 30 days in filing the subject appeal as their office was located in the containment zone, and was closed till the end of the August, 2020 due to the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic. Subsequently, he. while reiterating the submissions made in their appeal memorandum, contended that the impugned product would merit consideration under the Chapter Heading 23.03 attracting 5% of GST (2.5% CGST +2.5% SGST) and not under the Chapter Heading 23.09 as held by the MAAR, which does not attract any GST in terms of the entry enumerated at SI. No. 102 of the Notification No. 2/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28.06.2017. 6.2 Shri Abhijeet Padekar, the jurisdictional officer/Respondent in the matter, also reiterated the submissions made in his reply, which has been sent via e-mail dated 29.10.2020, wherein it has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Appellant, and thereby, holding that the said question is outside the ambit of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. and therefore, need not be answered. 10. On perusal of the above-mentioned documents and submissions, the moot issues, before us, are as under: I. Whether the classification of the impugned product, falling under TSH 2309 90 10 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as adopted to the CGST Act, 2017, attracting 'NIL' (0%) of 1GST or (0%) CGST + (0%) SGST as per the List of Exempted Goods in terms of SI. No 102 of Notification No. 02/2017 - Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017, is correct or not? II. Whether the impugned product can be considered as 'waste of sugar manufacturing' as being purported by the Appellant, and accordingly be classified under the Chapter Heading 2303. 11. To examine the first issue, we have to see whether the impugned product can be construed as cattle feed, and accordingly can be classified under the Chapter Heading 2309. In order to ascertain this aspect, we will analyze the constituents present in the impugned product. On perusal of the list of components present in the impugned product, which has been produced by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, some of them combine molasses with highly nutritive foods, such as wheat bran, palm kernel or copra oil cake and are used to make complete feeds or supplementary feeds." 15. Thus, the explanatory notes clearly explain that molasses, combined with other feeds, do come under heading 2309. The Appellant has contended in his grounds of appeal that the question framed by them is whether their product is falling under 2309 90 10 or 2303. As per HSN, Heading 2303 covers 'Residues of starch manufacture and similar residues, beet pulp, bagasse and other waste of sugar manufacture, brewing or distilling dregs and waste, whether or not in the form of pellets'. The explanatory notes of the HSN says that the heading covers, inter alia, (A) Residues of starch manufacture and similar residues (from maize corn, rice, potatoes), consisting of largely fibrous and protein substances usually presented in the form of pellets or meal but occasionally as cake. They are used as animal fodder or as fertilizers; some of these residues are used in the production of cultures. (B) Beet pulp is the residue which remains after the sugar has been extracted from the root of the sugar beet. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been established that the impugned product is an animal feed having specific use, viz.- increasing the milk production of the cattle and increasing the immunity of the cattle to fight diseases, and the said impugned product is also known in the market as the cattle feed supplement only, therefore, the said impugned product would be classified as animal feed supplement, and accordingly would merit classification under the Chapter Heading 2309 and under the Tariff Item 2309 90 10, and would not attract any GST in terms of Si. No. 102 of the Notification No. 2/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28.06.2017. 18. As regard the second question posed by the Appellant, we agree with the conclusion drawn by the MAAR that the question does not fall within the purview of Section 97 (2) of the CGST Act. 2017. The question is not in relation to supply of goods or services or both, being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the Appellant. The MAAR cannot decide whether a specific product can be said to be a waste of sugar manufacture as the said question is not within the scope of Section 97 of the CGST Act. 2017. Also, the Appellant has not given any rebuttal of the finding of the MAAR that t....