Clipped from: https://www.taxscan.in/boiled-supari-cannot-be-classified-under-miscellaneous-edible-preparations-under-customs-tariff-act-delhi-hc-confirms-caar-order/266427/?utm_source=izooto&utm_medium=push_notifications&utm_campaign=Boiled%20Supari%E2%80%9D%20cannot%20be%20classified%20under%20%E2%80%9CMiscellaneous%20Edible%20Preparations
The Delhi High Court confirmed the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, New Delhi (‘CAAR’) and observed that the Boiled Supari” cannot be classified under “Miscellaneous Edible Preparations” under Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
The appellant,MS ShreedhraAgro LLP, filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 22.06.2022 passed by the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, New Delhi (hereafter ‘CAAR’) whereby the products proposed to be imported by the appellant being “Scented & Flavoured and Sweetened Supari” are classified under sub- heading 080280 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
According to the appellant, the said ruling is erroneous and the product in question is classifiable under Chapter 21 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, more particularly, sub-heading 21069030.
Mr. S. Sunil, Counsel appearing for the appellantfairly accepts that the decision of this Court in M/s. Great Nuts Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Delhi &Orswould cover the issue in favour of the Revenue and submitted that in the said matter, the Circular issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue dated 06.10.2021 (Circular No.163/2019/2021-GST) had not been brought to the notice of this Court.
The Counsel further submitted that in terms of the said circular, the GST Council had clarified that “Scented Sweet Supari” falls under tariff item 21069030 as “Betel Nut product” known as “Supari” and attracts GST rate of 18%.
Ramachandran, Counsel for the respondent submits that it is possible for the GST Department to have a separate classification and the same is not governed by the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
The Court of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan observed that “The CAAR had not accepted that the clarification issued by the Circular No.163/2019/2021-GST dated 06.10.2021 would be material in determining the question. The CAAR has also not been persuaded to accept a different view from that of the Supreme Court on the basis of the clarification issued in terms of the aforementioned circular.”
“The CAAR has noted that the said circular does not provide any reasons for such clarification. We find no infirmity with the decision of the CAAR. As stated above, we are not required to examine the validity of the clarificatory circular issued by the respondent” the Bench concluded.To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
MS SHREEDHRA AGRO LLP THROUGH ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
Counsel for Appellant: Mr. S. Sunil
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. R. Ramachandran, Sr.Mr. Ravi Prakash , CGSC with Mr. Aman Rewaria
CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 611
Be the First to get the Best
Join Our email list to get the latest Tax Updates , Special Offers, Events delivered right to your Inbox
Email Address *