Appellate Orders

We confirm and uphold the Advance Ruling bearing No. GST-ARA-30/2020-21/B-71 dated 31.05.2022 pronounced by the MAAR. Therefore, the Appeal filed by the Appellant is, hereby, dismissed

In respect of point (i) of Prayer to the grounds of Appeal, the Appellate Authority did not find any infirmity with the ruling given by Authority for Advance Ruling in this behalf for Question No. 1 posed before them.  In respect of point (ii) of Prayer to the grounds of Appeal, the appellate authority  held that the use or words  ‘VALUE’, ‘CHOICE’ or ‘ SUPERIOR’ on the proposed packing, without altering the surrounding environment to take advantage of brand  ‘MORE’, would be construed as ‘brand name’ for the purpose of Exemption Notification. 

We, hereby, modify the advance ruling pronounced by the MAAR, and hold as under in respect of the question no. (2), (3). (4) and (5): Question 2 - If the answer to Question I is Yes, what is the value on which GST has to be charged ie. whether it should be lease charges or the value of equipment in terms of Section 15 of the CGST Act and MGST Act read with relevant Rules?

Answer: The value declared in the invoice issued by the appellant would be the value on which GST has to be charged in terms of Section 15 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with second proviso to Rule28 of the CGST Rules, 2017. Question 3  What are the documents that should accompany the movement of the goods from CIPL Maharashtra to CIPL Karnataka?

 Answer: The aforesaid question cannot be answered as the same is not covered within the ambit of advance ruling in terms of section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017. Question 4  Whether movement of equipment from CIPL Karnataka to CIPL Tamil Nadu on the instruction of CIPL Maharashtra can be said to be mere movement of goods not amounting to a supply in terms of Section 7 of the CGST Act and MGST Act, and thereby not liable to GST?

Answer:  Movement of equipment from CIPL Karnataka to CIPL Tamil Nadu on the instruction of CIPL Maharashtra cannot be said to be mere movement of goods not amounting to a supply in terms of Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017 as the said transaction would fall under the ambit of supply of services in terms of section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017. The said supply of services involved in the transaction under question is being provided by CIPL Karnataka to CIPL Maharashtra in the capacity of bailee of CIPL Maharashtra for which CIPL Karnataka is charging facilitation fee along with applicable GST from the Appellant, ie., CIPL Maharashtra as per the Inter-unit Memorandum of Understanding entered between the Appellant and other state units. It is further clarified here that the said movement of goods from CIPL Karnataka to CIPL Tamil Nadu as per the instruction received from CIPL Maharashtra, the owner of goods, will again be treated as supply of lease rental services by CIPL Maharashtra to CIPL Tamil Nadu as ruled by the MAAR. Question 5  With reference to Question 4 above, what are the documents that should accompany the movement of the goods from CIPL Karnataka to CIPL Tamil Nadu?

 Answer: The aforesaid question cannot be answered as the same is not covered within the ambit of advance ruling in terms of section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017

The Appellate Authority held that the accumulated credit by way of Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) as appeared in the Service tax return of Input Service Distributor (ISD) on June 30, 2017 which is carried forward in the electronic credit ledger maintained by the Appellant under CGST Act 2017, shall not be allowed to be taken as admissible input tax credit.  Accordingly the order of AAR stands confirmed in terms of the above order. 

The order passed by the lower authority is upheld. The subject appeal is disposed accordingly.

Questions - 1. Whether supply is classifiable as composite supply of works contract service. Answer – No

Questions  - 2. Whether AMC can be included within the ambit of above composite supply.  Answer - Question was not raised earlier and hence, not determined by the Authority for Advance Ruling. Can’t be raised before this Authority.

The appellate authority confirmed the ruling pronounced by the Authority for Advance Ruling holding   that Cornerstone imported by the Applicant is to be classified under HSN code 6810.

Question 1. Whether the construction of Institute of Security and Law Enforcement studies at Addu City in Maldives, constructed for Government of Maldives under an Memorandum of Understanding between India and Maldives falls within the GST net?

Answer : -Yes, the supply is within the ambit of GST.

 Question  :- 2. Who is the recipient of service in the instant case?

Answer :- National Buildings Construction Corporation Limited, Delhi is recipient of service from the applicant

Question 3. What is the place of supply in respect of the works contract for setting up of the Institute of Security and Law Enforcement Studies at ADDU City in Maldives?

Answer :- The applicant who is the supplier of service & NBCCL who is recipient of service are located in India and therefore the place of supply is to be determined under Section 12 of the IGST Act. The proviso to Sub-Section (3) of Section 12 of IGST Act clearly mention that if the location of immovable property is intended to be located outside India, the place of supply shall be the location of the recipient i.e., NBCCL.

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling set aside the Advance Ruling Authority Order  and further held on the basis of the available records ,  that the whole (Sheep/Goat) animal carcass in its natural shape in frozen state in different weight and size packed in LDPE bags without mentioning the weight and one or two such LDPE bags further packed in HDPE bags being supplied to Army by appellant against tender shall not qualify as product put up in “Unit Container”.

1. The order passed by the lower authority is upheld.

2. The appellants are not eligible to take input tax credit of GST paid on supply of works contract service for payment of GST on their output service i.e., Renting of immovable property