RAJASTHAN AAAR: HENNA POWDER CLASSIFICATION UNDER GST TARIFF EXPLAINED
RAJASTHAN APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Before the Bench of
1. Sh. Pramod Kumar Singh, Member (Central Tax)
2. Sh. Abhishek Bhagotia, Member (State Tax)
Case Title : Sunil Kumar Gehlot
(GST AAAR RAJASTHAN)
Appeal No. RAJ/AAAR/APP/04/2020-21
Advance Ruling No. RAJ/AAR/2020-21/01 dated 06.05.2020
ORDER NO. RAJ/AAAR/04/2020-21
Date of Judgment/ Order- 18th December 2020
IMPORTANT PARAGRAPHS
Para No. 1. At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the Central GST Act, 2017 and the Rajasthan GST Act, 2017 are same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the Central GST Act, 2017 would also mean a reference to the same provisions under Rajasthan GST Act, 2017.
Para No. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Central GST Act, 2017 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘the CGST Act’) read with Section 100 of the Rajasthan GST Act, 2017(hereinafter also referred to as ‘the RGST Act’) by M/S Sunil Kumar Gehlot (Trade Name Sunil Kumar & Co.) Sojat City, Distt, Pali-306104 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Appellant’) against the Advance Ruling No. RAJ/AAR/2020-21/OI dated 06.05.2020.
Para No. 3. M/S Sh. Sunil Kumar Gehlot (Trade name Sunil Kumar & Co.) (hereinafter refer to as Appellant) is registered with the GST department for manufacture of hair dye powder and is having GST Registration Number 08AAUHS7425MIZ6 and intends to manufacture Mehandi/Henna powder in future, therefore, Appellant filed an application for Advance Ruling before the Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling (hereinafter referred to as AAR) seeking clarification whether henna is classifiable under chapter 14 or 33 of GST Tariff?
3.1 AAR has observed that Henna/Mehendi powder has a natural property of dye/tanning and is generally used as hair dye and issued ruling vide their order dated 06.05.2020 that Mehendi /Henna powder is covered under Chapter 33 and will attract GST (CGST 9% + SGST 9%).
Para No. 7.3 The appellant has relied upon on the following decisions-
(i) Central India Tobacco Products Pvt Ltd v Collector of Central Excise, 1987 (29) ELT 472;
(ii) Union of India v Roshal Lai & another AIR 1968 DELHI – 165, at page 166.
In this regard, we find that in both the above cases, the issue was related to non- payment of court fees, but in this case, issue is related to determination of date of filing of appeal also. In this case, part fee has been deposited on 15.06.2020 and second part fees have been deposited on 22.10.2020. In this case complete fee has been deposited and appeal in prescribed format has been filed after more than 30 days from the due date of filing of appeal. Therefore, these case laws are not squarely applicable in this case.
Para No. 8 When it has been held that delay in filing of appeal is beyond the discretionary power provided to Appellate authority, therefore, we observe that discussing appeal on merit would not be relevant.
Para NO. 9 For the reasons discussed hereinabove, the condonation application filed by the appellant is hereby rejected and appeal is also rejected accordingly.
