In Re: v. M/s Sri Venkateswara Cashew Chikky Manufacturers

In Re: v. M/s Sri Venkateswara Cashew Chikky Manufacturers

(Authority For Advance Rulings (gst) Andhra Pradesh)

AAR No.10 /AP/GST/2023 | 26-05-2023

1. At the outset we would like to make it clear that the provisions of CGST Act, 2017 and SGST Act, 2017 are in parimateria and have the same provisions in like matter and differ from each other only on a few specific provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is particularly made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean reference to the corresponding similar provisions in the APGST Act.

2. The present application has been filed u/s 97 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 and AP Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to CGST Act and APGST Act respectively) by M/s. Sri Venkateswara Cashew Chikky Manufacturers (hereinafter referred to as applicant), registered under the AP Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.

3. Brief Facts of the case:

3.1. M/s Sri Venkateswara Cashew Chikky Manufacturers (hereinafter referred to as applicant”) is engaged in manufacturing and supply of an edible product under the name "Crackle", which is, as per applicant, identically known and recognised as °N.B.S Crackle’ and contains ingredients in following proportion. Applicant is having GST Registration number 37ABYPV0474E12Z1

Manufacturing Process _of N.B.S.Crackle: step-by-step manufacturing process of, “N.B.S. Crackle as per the applicant is tabulated here as under:

The above product manufactured by the applicant was supplied as industrial raw material to the manufacturer of ice creams i.e. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Dairy Classic Ice Creams (P) Ltd etc. The said product is used as toppings in ice creams.

The Applicant has been classifying the impugned product under Chapter 17049020 till date and discharging GST at the rate of 18% The Applicant wish to seek a ruling from the AAR on appropriate classification of the impugned product

4. Questions raised before the authority:

The applicant seeks advance ruling on the following:

1. Whether the product by name "Crackle", manufactured and supplied by the applicant containing the ingredients Sugar, Cashew Nuts, Butter, Liquid glucose and other permitted Flavours , should be classified under the Tariff Heading 1704 enumerated at Serial number 32AA of Schedule III of Notification No. 01/2017 as a Sugar boiled confectionery.

On Verification of basic information of the applicant, it is observed that the applicant is under Central jurisdiction i.e, Chirala Range , Nellore Division. Accordingly, the application has been forwarded to the jurisdictional officer and a copy marked to the Central Tax authorities to offer their remarks as per Sec. 98(1) of CGST /APGST Act 2017.

In response, remarks are received from the Central jurisdictional officer concerned stating that no proceedings lying pending with the issue, for which the advance ruling sought by the applicant.

5. Applicant’s Interpretation of Law:

5.1. The applicant submits that impugned product i.e. NBS Crackle is classifiable under tariff head 11704' enumerated at Serial number 32AA of Schedule II of Notification No. 01/2017, dated 28-6-2017.

The Chapter 17 of the HSN is for "Sugar & Sugar Confectionery’. While 1701 to 1703 headings relate to Sugars in different forms, the Heading 1704 mentions ‘Sugar Confectionery’. ‘Sugar Confectionery’ or ‘Confectionery’ has nowhere been specifically defined under the GST law or for that matter under HSN and therefore, one has to go by the plain or dictionary meaning.

5.2. Dictionary meaning of the phrase ‘confectionery’

Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, Part III, where the word is defined as of the nature of confection, cornfit or sweetmeat or pertaining to confections or confectioner's work. As per this Dictionary, the word ‘confection’ means to prepare for use with Sugar, syrup, or the like; to make into a confection; to mix, make up as a condiment or seasoned delicacy. We find that in the same Dictionary, the words "confectionery preparation" are defined as a sweetmeat. The word 'sweetmeat' is defined in the Webster's Encyclopaedic Unbridged Dictionary as sweet delicacy, Prepared with sugar, honey or the like, as preserves candy, or formerly cakes or Pastry,

In Fund All Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary confectionary is defined as-

"Confectionary is defined as sweet meat. Collectively, that a confectionary makes or sells as candy or other articles made of sugar, sirup honey or the like"

In ‘Word Origins and their Romantic Stones" by Wilfred Funk, on page 346, the Word ‘Confetti’ is given. We reproduce the relevant portion from the said book:

5.3. "CONFETTI: was once candy Confetti is an Italian word for candies or sweetmeats; and the corresponding French word is bonbon, literally 'good-good'. On carnival days the merrymakers in Italy used to have fun pelting each other with this candy, those who could afford it throwing money too. Later on, an enterprising and thrifty storekeeper made imitation sweetmeats, or confetti, out of plaster and pasteboard. To day little bits of colored paper, still called confetti, have been substituted for the pasteboard ones. When we city folks are celebrating the arrival of some great hero, we tear up the pages of the telephone books and throw the pieces out of, the windows as symbolic offerings of candies and money. The word ‘confetti’ is originally from Latin confectus, ‘put together, “prepared'. This word also gave us our word confection which is another term for confetti and bon-bons.

As per the above dictionary meaning the word ‘confectionery’ connotes any eatables which is made by compounding or mixing with sugar ingredients. The applicant submits that NBS Crackles manufactured by the assessee contain admittedly sweet ingredients.

5.4 Judicial Interpretation of the phrase 'Confectionery' The applicant, submits a case law to advance his arguments.

In the case of Annapurna Biscuit (Mfg.) Co & another v. The State of U.P and another (1975) 35 STC 127 (ALL) [LQ/AllHC/1974/291] the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that biscuits were not confectionery. While dealing with the dispute the court observed as follows:

“The question with which we are concerned is whether biscuit can be said to be confectionery. The history of confectionery industry indicates that it developed with the cultivation of sugarcane. Many kinds of sweetmeats and candy were made by moulding sugar, nuts and fruits of various kinds into fanciful forms, One of the main ingredients used for manufacturing confectionery is sugar. Confectionery is essentially a sweetmeat. In certain preparations to the sweet base are added chocolate, fruits, nuts and peanuts, eggs, milk products, flavours and colours. In certain other preparations, like cakes and pastries, wheat flour (maids) and sugar form the main ingredients to which other items are added. Biscuit on the other hand, is a kind of dry bread in which Sugar is almost insignificant ingredient. In salted biscuits sugar is not at all used"

5.5 In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the applicant submits that confectionery comprises articles in which the main ingredients is sugar, although other articles may be added for enhancing its taste. It thus comprises essentially only these articles which are commonly called sweetmeats. Thus, it is clear that it is food chiefly made of sugar. Normally it is made by cooking process, other than baking. Impugned product manufactured by the Applicant contain substantial amount of sugar, and are not made out of the baking process. Therefore, the impugned product primarily falls under the ambit of ‘confectionery’ products.

5.6 Principles and Classification of Confectionery Products

The applicant submits that, confectionery is an important food item of great popularity among wide range of population. It has been enjoyed as a major food delicacy from ancient times. The term confectionery is ambiguous and describes a spectrum of sweet goods and takes on different meaning depending on the country in which it is used, for example in the United Kingdom the term applies to any sweet product including cakes. Globally, confectionery foods represent 50% by volume of foods produced and 60% by value. The Indian confectionery market is estimated to be 1,38,000 metric tonnes fin 2005) and is segmented into sugar-boiled confectionery, chocolates, mints and chewing gums. Sugar-boiled confectionery- consisting of hard-boiled candy, toffees and other suger-based candies

5.7 Classification of Confectionery

Confectionery can be classified into four major groups. They are as follows:

In sugar confectionery, sugar is the main or principal ingredient while in other confectionery sugar is used as one of the ingredient.

5.8 Sugar Boiled Confectionery:

Sugar Confectionery includes Sugar Boiled Confectionery_ As per Indian Standard IS 1008: 2004, sugar boiled confectionery includes following type of food products

a) Hard Boiled Sugar Confectionery

b) Pan Goods Confectionery (Dragees)

c) Toffees

Sugar boiled confectionery sold as hard boiled confectionery, pan good confectionery and toffee is a processed composite food article made from sugar with or without doctoring agents, such as liquid glucose and/or cream of tartar by a process of boiling whether panned or not with or without the addition of colour, flavour, fillings (in the form of liquid, semi-solid or solid) with or without coating of sugar or chocolate or both and other edible materials and made into any desired shape and size.

As mentioned above, the N.B.S. Crackle manufactured by the Applicant is caramelized by boiling the sugar with the water. Subsequently, other edible products viz. cashew nuts and butter are coated and made into desired size and shape by N.B.S. Crackle machine. Therefore, the impugned product manufactured by the Applicant is "Sugar Boiled Confectionery"

The Applicant in this regard also obtained technical test report from Food Testing Laboratory, School of Food Technology, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh wherein the impugned product N.B.S. Crackle manufactured by the Applicant has satisfied all the parameters laid down under Indian Standard IS 1008:2004 in the said technical test report. Copy of technical test report is enclosed as Annexure-1.

5.9 Classification of NBS Crackle under GST Act:

GST Notification 1 of 2017 enlists the rate of tax on goods falling within the ambit of GST. The said Notification has undergone various amendments since inception of GST. Presently, in the above notification, the goods falling under HSN Code 1704 are primarily covered under three schedules i.e. Schedule 1, Schedule II and Schedule HI with 5%12% and 18% rates of tax respectively.

Items of HSN Code 1704 falling under Schedule I of GST _ Notification 01/2017:

As per GST Notification 41/2017 dated 15.11.2017 read with GST Notification 01/2017, the following items pertaining to HSN Code 1704 are falling under serial number 92 of Schedule 1 of GST Notification 01/2017 with 5% rate of Tax. The relevant extract of serial number 92 is as under:

Schedule I -2,5%

Similarly, as per GST Notification 06/2018 dated 25.01.2018 read with GST Notification 01/2017, the following items pertaining to HSN Code 1704 are falling under serial number 32AA of Schedule II of GST Notification 01/2017 with 12% rate of Tax. The relevant extract of serial number 32AA is as under:

Schedule II -6%

Items of HSN Code 1704 falling under Schedule Itt of GST Notification 01/2017:

The Items neither falling under serial number 92 of Schedule I nor under serial number 32AA of Schedule I] in GST Notification 01/2017 are covered under serial number 12 of Schedule III of GST Notification 01/2017 with 18% rate of tax, The relevant extract of serial number 12 is as under:

Schedule ITI -9%

As stated above, NBS Crackle is a Sugar Boiled Confectionery and therefore the impugned product is classifiable under tariff head '1704' enumerated at Serial number 32AA of Schedule II of Notification No. 01/2017, dated 28-6- 2017 and chargeable at 12% rate of GST.

5.10 B. Specific Entry prevails over general entry

The Applicant submits that the impugned products dealt by the Applicant are classifiable under "Sugar Boiled Confectionery" there are catena of case laws held in Supreme Court of India that a general entry or a residual entry will be preferred for a classification of commodity only in the absence of a specific entry.

The Apex Court of India in the case of Indian Metals & Ferrous Alloys v. Collector of Central Excise 1991 taxmann.. corn 71 held that in classification of goods a specific entry will be preferred to a general entry. Similarly the Honible Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Durga Projects Inc. [2018] 91 taxmann.com 54 in its (3) member bench judgment held that only such goods which cannot be brought under specific entries in the tariff could be attempted to be brought in residual entry.

5.11 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. & Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. v. Union of India [19761 2 SCC 241 held that "when an article has, by all standards, a reasonable claim to be classified under an enumerated item in the Tariff Schedule, it will be against the very principle of classification to deny it the parentage and consign it to an orphanage of the residuary clause.

Thus when a specific entry is available for enumerating the commodity NBS Crackle to relegate it to the orphanage of the residuary entry will be against the principle of Classification as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above precedents. Hence NBS Crackle is classifiable under tariff head '1704' enumerated at Serial number 32AA of Schedule II of Notification No. 01/2017, dated 28-6-2017.

6. Personal Hearing:

The proceedings of Personal Hearing were conducted on 29.03.2023, for which the authorized representative, T. Bhanu Purdhviraj, CA attended and reiterated the submissions already made,

7. Discussion and Findings:

We have examined the issues raised in the application in light of the facts and arguments submitted by the applicant. We have considered the submissions made by the applicant in their application for Advance Ruling. We have considered the issues involved from which advance ruling is sought by the applicant and the relevant facts along with arguments made by the applicant and also their submissions made during the time of the personal hearing.

The applicant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supply of an edible product under the name "Crackle", which is, as per applicant, identically known and recognised as ‘N.B.S Crackle’ and which contains sugar ,butter,cashew,glucose in different proportions. The Applicant hereby briefly explain the step-by-step manufacturing process of *N.B.S. Crackle:

- Mixture of sugar and water is boiled until it is caramalised.

- Once the mixture is caramelized, Cashew Nuts, Butter and Liquid glucose should be added.

- After that, the mixture should be cooled down and mixed in S.S Table.

- After that, the mixture is now converted in to papads. Now these papadas are processed in Chilky/Butterscotch Nuts/NBS Crackles Machine.

- After that, they are packaged in polythene bags, and sent for metal detection and finally packed in corrugated boxes for dispatch.

The applicant specifically sought advance ruling in respect of classification of the impunged product identified under the name “ NBS Crackle “.According to the applicant ,the impugned product manufactured by them is a format of ‘sugar boiled confectionery’ since their product under the name ‘NBS Crackle’ also employ the same _ ingredients, formulations and the same processes. Thus ,according to the applicant, the impugned product has the ingredients, formulations, processes which are similar to ingredients/formulations/processes employed with what is traditionally classified as ‘sugar boiled confectionery’ and therefore the subject product needs to be classified as ‘Sugar boiled confectionery’ falling under Chapter Heading 1704 and covered by Schedule 1],Sr.No.32AA,attracting 12% GST of Notification No.01/2017 dated 28.06.2017 as amended from time to time pertaining to rate of GST on goods.

In view of the above, the primary issue before us to decide is the classification of the impugned product which is marketed in the name “NBS Crackle” .Thus we proceed to examine, discuss and decide the classification of the afore mentioned product.

We invite reference, with regard to the classification of goods under GST, to the notification No.1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017,chapter heading 1704 and relevant tariff entries therein which are modified vide Notification 41/2017 dated 15.11.2017 and Notification 06/2018 dated 25.01.2018 .

We find that the Chapter 17 of the HSN is for ‘Sugar & Sugar Confectionery’. While 1701 to 1703 headings relate to Sugars in different forms, the Heading 1704 mentions Sugar Confectionery. Sugar Confectionery has nowhere been specifically defined under GST law or under HSN, However ,going by the trade parlance and prevailing practice, the Sugar Confectionery has been classified under:

As per HS explanatory notes, Heading 1704 of HSN covers most of the sugar preparations which are marketed in a solid or semi-solid form and gencrally suitable for immediate consumption thus collectively referred to as sweetmcats, confectionery or candics (based on C.B.E & C FAQs issucd on 29-09-2-17), Where as , Sugar boiled confectionery’ is sugar and water, etc, boiled at such a temperature that practically no water remains and a vitreous mass is formed ,is bought and consumed by end users.

In the present scenario, the impugned product is sold only to icecream manufactures. As per the submissions of the applicant, the impugned products are not meant for consumption by the end users directly but are used in the process of icecream making, specifically used as toppings only. Hence, the impugned product under the name “N.B.S. Crackle “which is an industrial input cannot be classified under “suger boiled confectionery.

Hence, we rule as under

RULING

(Under Section 98 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017)

Question: | Whether the product by name "Crackle", manufactured and supplied by the applicant containing the ingredients Sugar, Cashew Nuts, Butter, Liquid glucose and other permitted Flavours , should be classified under the Tariff Heading 1704 enumerated at Serial number 32AA of Schedule III of Notification No. 01/2017 as a Sugar boiled confectionery.

Answer : Negative

Advocate List
Bench
  • K.Ravi Sankar (Member)
  • RV Pradhamesh Bhanu (Member)
Eq Citations
  • (2023) 100 GST 519 (AAR)
  • 2023 [79] G.S.T.L. 136
  • LQ/AAR(GST)/2023/146
Head Note

CGST & SGST Acts, 2017 — Advance Ruling — Classification of goods — Sugar — Sugar confectionery — Sugar-boiled confectionery — Product by name ‘Crackle’ manufactured and supplied by the applicant containing sugar, cashew nuts, butter, and liquid glucose — Held, is not classifiable under Tariff Heading 1704 enumerated at Serial Number 32AA of Schedule III of Notification No. 01/2017 as sugar-boiled confectionery — Rather, ‘Crackle’ is an industrial input, not meant for consumption by end users but used in the process of ice-cream making as toppings only\n(Paras 7 and 8)\n input: Summarize: 1. Plaintiffs filed a suit to secure the direction upon the Union of India and other respondents to ensure the safety of air and for paying them the monetary compensation to the victims of the fateful Bhopal gas tragedy. 2. The pleadings of the plaintiffs were recorded during the 1988 February-March and the trial proceedings started in January, 1990. 3. The counsel for the plaintiffs at the outset made an application that all the written statements should be expunged from the record of the suit. The learned counsel for the respondents filed their objections but the same were rejected by the judge vide order dated 01.06.1990. 4. The Supreme Court on 26.11.2002 vide order granted stay of all further proceedings before the High Court. 5. The civil appeal was heard by the Supreme Court and disposed of by passing Judgment dated 4.9.2008. 6. The plaintiffs filed a review petition which was finally dismissed by the Supreme Court on the 22nd September, 2010. 7. The review petition aforesaid was filed by the plaintiffs after a delay of about 9 months and 22 days. 8. The appellants-plaintiffs have filed an appeal under clause (6) of article 136 seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.05.2017, passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court. 9. The question of law arises for our determination whether the delay in filing the review petition is condonable? 10. The review petition which was filed before the Supreme Court was filed after a delay of about 9 months and 22 days. 11. The party who is seeking condonation of delay must, therefore, provide some reasonable and cogent ground for not having filed the special leave petition within the prescribed period. 12. The appellants have not brought on record any fresh evidence in support of their case. 13. That the appellant has to show a sufficient cause for condonation of delay which has been well expressed in the decision of this Court in the case titled as Ravinder Singh Chauhan Vs. CIT reported in 357 ITR 336 (SC). 14. In the case titled as Jai Singh (dead) through LR Vs. Nageshwar Prasad Dewed reported in AIR (2007) Supreme Court 1540 wherein it has been held that mere general statements as that the counsel who was dealing with the review petition had left the profession and the appellant is not aware as to what happened thereafter is no ground for condonation of delay. 15. Therefore, the delay in filing the special leave petition in the present case is not condonable. 16. Held: in view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge, High Court and hence the appeal is dismissed\n output: Limitation Act, 1963 — Condonation of delay — Review petition filed before the Supreme Court after a delay of 9 months and 22 days — Delay held not to be condonable — Delay is not condonable on general statement that the counsel dealing with the review petition had left profession and the appellant is not aware as to what happened thereafter\n(Paras 13, 14 and 16)\n input:Your task is to generate a headnote for a legal judgment in a format very similar to SCC (Supreme Court Cases) summaries, including key legal issues, relevant sections of laws, case references, and any significant findings from the judgment text, presented in a clear and concise format with bulleted points and relevant paragraphs from the judgment text, as in SCC summaries, including any specific legal amendments and their effects when citing sections of laws.\nSummarize: 1. In the instant petition, the appellant has chosen to file an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the election of the respondent No. 6 for the post of Vice-President of the State Bar Council of Bihar in short “SBCB”. 2. In the election to the Vice-President of SBCB held on 23.04.2022, the petitioner secured 14718 votes as against 15075 votes secured by respondent No. 6. 3. The petitioner has levelled a number of allegations against respondent No. 6 and others including, inter alia,:- (i) that names of large number of advocates were deleted in arbitrary and illegal manner and thereby, they were not allowed to vote in the election; (ii) that the nomination form of a candidate, who was in all probability, going to win the election was rejected in illegal and arbitrary manner and thereby he was not allowed to contest the election; (iii) that the election was not held in free and fair manner and was interfered with by corrupt practices and malpractices adopted by respondent No. 6 and his supporters. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the relevant provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, The Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 and the Bihar Bar Council Rules, 1976 in order to submit that the rejection of nomination of the aforesaid candidate was illegal and arbitrary. 5. It was submitted that the rejection of the nomination form of Shri Jagdish Singh Pahwa was wholly illegal and arbitrary and the said candidate ought to have been allowed to contest the election, and if he would have contested the election, he would have surely won the election, which was a foregone conclusion and, therefore, the election conducted on 23.04.2022 should be declared illegal and void, and a fresh election be ordered to be conducted. 6. Shri Jagdish Singh Pahwa, who was a candidate for the post of Vice-President, during the scrutiny of his nomination papers on 21.03.2022 was asked as to why his name appears in the list of Advocates who have not paid their enrollment fees till date. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that there is no provision in the rules for rejection of nomination paper of a candidate for the reason that enrollment fee has not been paid and neither in the Act nor in the rules framed thereunder, there is any provision for the preparation of such a list of advocates. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Section 24(1)(b) of the Advocates Act, 1961 preserves the rights of such advocates who have not paid their enrollment fee till date to practice in the Court and thereby, the petitioner has a fundamental right to contest the elections. 9. The Election Returning Officer on 21.03.2022 after hearing Shri Jagdish Singh Pahwa, declined to accept his nomination papers, on the ground that he appeared in the list of advocates who have not paid their enrollment fees. 10. On 22.03.2022, an appeal was filed by Shri Jagdish Singh Pahwa before the Chairman, Bihar State Bar Council-respondent No. 5, challenging the order of the Election Returning Officer dated 21.03.2022. 11. However, the Chairman, SBCB on the same day dismissed the aforesaid appeal without giving any reason whatsoever. 12. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the candidate Shri Jagdish Singh Pahwa was eligible to practice in the Court, therefore, he cannot be debarred from contesting the election by rejection of his nomination paper and the order of the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination papers and also the order passed by the Chairman, SBCB dismissing the appeal filed by him, are, therefore, bad in law and liable to be set aside. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6 has submitted that the nomination form of Shri Jagdish Singh Pahwa was rightly rejected inasmuch as he had not paid his enrollment fee till date and, therefore, the impugned election is not liable to be interfered with. 14. It was further submitted that the question raised in this case has been finally settled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bihar State Bar Council Vs. Ram Awadh Singh and others reported in (2021) 1PLJR 207. 15. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 6 has been filed in which a long list of judgments of this Court as well as of the other High Courts, including the Apex Court have been cited in support of the proposition that the rejection of nomination form of Shri Jagdish Singh Pahwa was legal and justified and cannot be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6 has also submitted that the rejection of the nomination paper of