TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 1051
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellant") against the Advance Ruling No. GST-ARA-51/2019-201B-38 dated 17.03.2020, pronounced by the Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling (hereinafter referred to as "the MAAR"). BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 3.1 M/s Saint-Gobain India Private Limited is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of glass and gypsum products. One of the gypsum products manufactured and marketed by the Appellant is the "Gypsum Board-. 3.2 Gypsum Board is a board / panel made of calcium sulfate dihydrate (gypsum). with or without additives, typically extruded between thick sheets of facer and backer paper, used in construction of interior walls and ceilings. Gypsum Board may be manufactured as plain, laminated and reinforced board and reinforcing materials used include glass, paper, vegetable fibers etc. Currently, the Appellant is manufacturing both paper reinforced and glass reinforced gypsum boards. 3.3 The Appellant is proposing to manufacture a new category of product under "Glass reinforced gypsum board" (hereinafter referred to as "GRG") which is essentially going to be a gypsum plaster, reinforced with glass-fiber. The composition of the propose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....holding that the Appellant was not qualifying the "eligibility test- for filing an Advance Ruling before the Authority in terms of Section 95(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, since the proposed product is not in 'existence' at all for obtaining an advance ruling under GST. They further observed that since the issue in the present case pertains to "classification" of a proposed product, they cannot proceed ahead to give the ruling in absence of the physical samples of the proposed product under consideration. 3.9 Aggrieved by the aforesaid Advance Ruling Order, dated 17.3.2020 passed by the MAAR, the Appellant has filed this present appeal. GROUNDS OF APPEAL 4. The Appellant, in their appeal memorandum. inter alia, has mentioned the following grounds of appeal: 4.1 That the issue on which the present appeal is being filed in the instant matter relates to determination of "applicability of a notification issued under the provisions of Act" as covered under Section 97(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the product in question namely 'Glass-Fiber Reinforced Gypsum Board'. 4.2 That the Advance Ruling was sought for the product, which was proposed to be manufactured and not in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vision which prescribes no bar. Hence, it is submitted that under the GST provisions, an Advance Ruling can also be obtained for a product which is not in existence as on the date of the Advance Ruling and which is proposed to be manufactured and supplied. If the intention of the legislature was to the contrary, the same would have been explicitly provided or clarified by way of a subsequent amendment or circular to this effect. Thus, the MAAR has erred in rejecting the application on the said grounds. 4.7 That reference in this regard has been invited to CBIC's GST Flyer on Advance Ruling Mechanism (Chapter 37), wherein it has been stated that "definition of Advance Ruling given under the Act is a broad one and an improvement over the existing systems of advance rulings under Customs and Central Excise Laws. Under GST, Advance Ruling can be obtained for a proposed transaction as well as a transaction already undertaken by the Appellant." Further, the Flyer also explains the importance of Advance Ruling by explaining its objectives. It states that an "advance ruling helps the applicant in planning his activities, which are liable for payment of GST, well in advance.'" More....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....impact strength to the board. Its brittle properties prevent the effective utilization of high compressive strength in structural applications. In order to overcome the said shortcomings, a variant of Gypsum board is produced called "Glass-Fiber Reinforced Gypsum Board". The said product is a variant of the original Gypsum board as -Glass-Fiber- is added to the original composition of the product to increase its reinforcement. 4.12 That it is pertinent to understand the meaning of the term -reinforced-. The term "reinforced", has been defined in various dictionaries as under: * The Merriam Webster dictionary defines "reinforce" as 'to strengthen by additional assistance, material or support: make stronger or more pronounced'. * The Collins dictionary defines "reinforce" as to reinforce an object means to make it stronger or harder'. * The Cambridge dictionary defines "reinforce- as to make something stronger, usually by adding more material or another piece'. 4.13 From the above meaning, it is deduced that reinforcement implies strengthening by addition or assistance of some material. In the present matter, the Appellant proposes to add glass-fiber up to one....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n cannot be denied to the Appellant simply on the criteria of quantity of glass-fiber, when such disqualification is not provided under the notification. 4.18 To support the above submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of: (i) Khanna Dyeing & Printing Works v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III reported at 2000 (118) E.L.T. 637 (Tribunal), wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal inter-alia held that the notification shall be applicable to all fabrics containing nylon yarns and not just fabrics in which the nylon yarn predominates the weight. (ii) Talbros Automotive Components Limited v/s Collector of Customs, Bombay reported at 1984 (15) E.L.T. 193 (Tribunal), wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal held that "on a literal construction, this expression would cover a manufacture which contained mineral fibers or yarn, irrespective of the percentage of the mineral fibers or yarn, and all such manufactures would he brought within the scope of Item 22F. 4.19 Thus, it is submitted that a gypsum board containing any percentage of glass fiber which provides reinforcement in any form to the gypsum board, could be considered as G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecifying quantifications/conditions. (ii) Notification No. 38/1993 dated 28th February 1993 issued under Central Excise Act, 1944. granting exemption from payment of excise duty to all goods falling under Chapter 68 (except those falling under Heading 68.04), with specific quantifications/conditions. (iii) Notification 12/2012 - Central Excise, dated 17th March 2012 granting exemption from whole of excise duty to specified goods of Chapter 1 to 98. Under Entry 74 of the said notification, exemption is granted to 5% Ethanol blended petrol subject to the condition that the said product should conform to Bureau of Indian Standards specification 2796. Similarly, Entry 75 of the said notification while granting exemption to 10% ethanol blended petrol clearly mentions as a condition. conformance to Bureau of Indian Standards specification 2796. (iv) Entry 94A of the abovementioned notification, i.e. Notification 12/2012 - Central Excise, dated 17th March 2012 (inserted by Notification No. 3/2014 - Central Excise dated 3rd February 2014) which provides for exemption from payment of excise duty to Dicalcium phosphate (DCP) of animal feed grade confirming to IS specification No. 5470:....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partment could not mandate the conformance with the same. 4.27 That benefit of the notification should be unconditional in the absence of any specific condition mentioned in the notification. In this regard, reference has been made to Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad Vs. Sunder Steels Limited reported at 2005 (181) E.L.T. 154 (S.C.), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while awarding exemptions benefits to the assessee in absence of any conditions prescribed in the said notification, inter-alia, observed that the Notification has to be interpreted on its wording. No words, not used in the notification, can be added." 4.28 That under the GST-regime, wherever the intention of the legislature is to grant conditional benefit, the same has been explicitly stated, as is evident from few illustrative entries of the Notification No. l/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28.06.2017 and Notification No. 2/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28.06.2017, which have been reproduced as under: Schedule II to Notification No. 1/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28.06.2017 (CGST @ 6 %) Sl. No. (1) Chapter/Heading/Sub-heading/Tariff item (2) Description of Goods (3)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....T.(Rate), dated 28.06.2017, which provides for the concessional rate of duty at the rate of 12% for the product falling under the category of glass reinforced gypsum board. PERSONAL HEARING 6. A personal hearing in the matter was held on 15.10.2020, which was attended by Shri R. Nambirajan, Advocate, as the representative of the Appellant, and by Shri Ghanisht Yesu, Deputy Commissioner (Central Tax), as the Jurisdictional officer/Respondent, in the subject appeal matter. 6.1 During the course of the said hearing, Shri Nambirajan reiterated the earlier written submissions incorporated in the appeal memorandum. He also referred to the Advance Ruling pronounced by the West Bengal AAAR in the case of, wherein it was held by the WBAAAR that Akansha Hair & Skin Care Herbal Unit Pvt. Ltd. [2018(16) GSTL 277 (West-Bengal AAAR-GST)[ West Bengal Advance Ruling Authority had erred in not pronouncing its order on the products proposed to be manufactured, which is contrary to the definition of Advance Ruling, as laid down under clause (a) of Section 95 of the GST Act, 2017, which specifically provides that supply of goods, -proposed to be undertaken" by an applicant, also falls under the am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of admitting the application for advance ruling and now the said requirement cannot be insisted upon. 6.6 It was further submitted by the Appellant that since the matter was not decided on merits by MAAR, therefore, the subject application should be remanded back to the MAAR for reconsideration in terms of Section 101(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 which empowers the Appellate Authority to confirming or modifying the Ruling appealed against. 7. Shri Ghanisht Yesu, appearing in the capacity of the jurisdictional officer, reiterated the earlier submissions, filed before us, wherein it was contended that since the proposed product under question is in hypothetical state, the Advance Ruling as to the classification of the said product, as sought for by the Appellant, cannot be provided as the said 'proposed product under consideration' is yet to be examined by the accredited laboratory for its specifications with regard to its composition and its essential characteristics. Hence. it is not possible to classify the proposed product under question under any Tariff Item and therefore, it is not possible to offer any comments in respect of the applicability of the entry at Sl.No.92 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at an Advance Ruling can be asked for a transaction undertaken or proposed to be undertaken. Any transaction of supply of goods or services or both, proposed to be undertaken, can be a subject of an application of Advance Ruling. However, the meaning of the expression `proposed to be undertaken' cannot be expanded to include manufacturing, proposed to be undertaken. We agree with the observations of the MAAR in this respect. It is one of the fundamental rules of interpretation that if the words of a statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more is necessary than to expound those in their natural and ordinary sense as the words themselves in such a case best declare the intention of the legislature. There is no need for an artificial expansion of the expression as a result of which the interpretation may well go beyond the intention of the Legislature. The application is therefore barred under Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017 and we confirm the observations of the MAAR and also dismiss the appeal of the Appellant. 11. However, we find that MAAR has observed that the samples of the product are not submitted and in the absence of non-submission of the samples of....