Different shapes and sizes of Papad to be classified under Heading No. 19059040 & exempt from GST: AAAR

Case details:Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Gujarat Piyush Jayantilal Dobaria, In re - [2021] 133 taxmann.com 360 (AAAR-GUJARAT)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Piyush Jayantilal Dobaria, In re*
  • J.P. Gupta and Seema Arora, Member
  • Nishant Shukla, Adv. for the Appellant.

Facts of the Case

The appellant was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of a product viz. papad of different shapes and sizes. It sought advance ruling to determine under which Tariff Heading papad of different shapes and sizes manufactured and supplied by it would be covered and its taxability. The Authority for Advance Ruling ruled that the appellant’s product, i.e., papad of different shapes and sizes is not papad but is un-fried fryums and the said product would be classifiable under Tariff No. 2106 90 99 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and taxable at 18%. It filed appeal against the ruling and contended that its product papad of different shapes and sizes is neither fully cooked nor in ready to eat condition and would be eligible to be classified under Tariff No. 1905 and exempt from GST.

AAAR Held

The Appellate Authority observed that in entry at Sl. No. 96 of the Notification No. 2/2017 – Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 the description of the product is papad by whatever name called. To understand the term ‘whatever name called’ the principle of Noscitur a sociis is to be applied. As per the said principle, the meaning of an unclear word or phrase must be determined by the words that surround it. Therefore, in this entry only a product called by name of Papad would not be covered but all types of product which are similar to Papad in respect of ingredient, manufacturing process, use and common parlance would be covered irrespective of their shapes and sizes and even name. Therefore, the impugned product, i.e. different shapes and sizes of papad would be eligible to be covered under Entry at Sl. No. 96 of Notification No. 2/2017 – Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 and exempt from GST.

Case Review

• • Piyush Jayantilal Dobaria, In re [2021] 123 taxmann.com 382 (AAR – Guj.)reversed.
  • Shakti Gold Finger v. Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax [1996] 9 SCC 514 (para 44),
  • State of Karnataka v. Vasavamba Stores [2013] 29 taxmann.com 551 (Kar.) (para 46),
  • Avadh Food Products v. State of Gujarat [First Appeal No. 1 of 2015, dated 3-7-2015] (para 44)
  • Swethin Food Products v. State of Gujarat 2016 CSTB-I 296 (para 44) followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Manilal Commodities (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 1992 (59) ELT 189 (Trib.) (para 12)
  • Commissioner of Customs, CGO v. Sonam International 2012 (275) ELT 326 (All.) (para 12)
  • Subramani Sumathi, In re [2019] 104 taxmann.com 197/72 GST 781 (AAR – Tamilnadu) (para 14)
  • State of Punjab v. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. [2006] 147 STC 657 (SC) (para 15)
  • J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. Union of India 1987 taxmann.com 623 (SC) (para 15)
  • Senior Electric Inspector v. Laxmi Narayan Chopra [1962] 3 SCR 146 (para 15)
  • Chaudhary Tractor Co. v. State of Haryana [2007] 8 VST 10 (Punj. & Har.) (para 15)
  • Shiv Shakti Gold Finger v. Asstt. Commissioner, Commercial Tax [1996] 9 SCC 514 (para 17)
  • State of Karnataka v. Vasavamba Stores [2013] 29 taxmann.com 551 (Karn.) (para 17)
  • Avadha Food Products v. State of Gujarat [First Appeal No. 1 of 2015, dated 3-7-2015] (para 18)
  • Swethin Food Products v. State of Gujarat 2016 GSTB I 296 (para 18)
  • Jay Khodiyar Agency [2007-D-98-103, dated 11-9-2007] (para 18)
  • Kansara Trading Co. [2011-D-356-357, dated 11-2-2011] (para 18)
  • West Coast Waterbase (P.) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [2016] 95 VST 370 (Guj.) (para 19)
  • Collector of Customs v. Krishna Sales (P.) Ltd. AIR 1994 SC 1239 (para 20)
  • Kalyani Global Engineering (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CCT [SCA No. 7391 of 2016, dated 4-8-2016] (para 20)
  • CCT v. A.R. Thermosets (P.) Ltd. [2016] 73 taxmann.com 254 (para 21)
  • Ponds India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax 2009 taxmann.com 934 (SC) (para 22)
  • CCE v. Minwool Rock Fibers Ltd. 2012 (278) ELT 581 (SC) (para 23)
  • Sonal Products, In re [2019] 103 taxmann.com 280 (Guj.) (para 25)
  • T.T.K. Pharma Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1993 (63) ELT 446 (Trib.) (para 25)
  • Commissioner of Commercial Tax v. T.T.K. Healthcare Ltd. 2007 (211) ELT 197 (SC) (para 26)
  • Mauri Yeast India (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. 2008 (225) ELT 321 (SC) (para 26)
  • CCE v. Connaught Plaza Restaurant (P.) Ltd. 2012 (286) ELT 321 (SC) (para 40.1)
  • CCE v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. 2009 (237) ELT 225 (SC) (para 40.2)