Instant mix flour which is not ready to eat is classifiable under HSN 2106 90 & taxable at 18%: AAR

Case Details: Authority for Advance Rulings, Gujarat Ramdev Food Products (P.) Ltd., In Re - [2021] 131 taxmann.com 292 (AAR - GUJARAT)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Sanjay Saxena and Arun Richard, Member
  • Manan Shah, C.A. and Hardik Bhatt, Manager for the Applicant.

Facts of the Case

The applicant was engaged in supply of varieties of instant mix flours under a brand name. The flours would need further processing and not in ready to consume form. It filed an application for advance ruling to determine the classification and applicable rate of tax under GST Act on supply of instant mix flours for Gota, Khaman, Dalwada, Dahiwada, Idli, Dhokla, Dosa, Pizza, Methi Gota and Handvo.

AAR Held

The Authority for Advance Ruling observed that the Product Instant Mix Flours were preparations for use and after processing, such as cooking, carrying out the detailed procedure for cooking as mentioned on the packets of all the said products, they would be ready for human consumption. Moreover, these items contained spices and additives apart from flour of dried leguminous vegetables, rice and wheat, in different proportions. In view of the Explanatory Notes of the HSN, these products were excluded from the Heading Nos. 1101 and 1102. Since, these products were not specifically mentioned under any specific Tariff item and thus the products would merit classification under the residual entry ‘other’ at Heading No. 210690 and taxable at 18%.

Case Review

• • CCE v. R.M. Foods [2010] 2 taxmann.com 945 (CESTAT-AHD.) (para 25) followed.
  • Dipakkumar Kantilal Chotai, In re [2021] 123 taxmann.com 269 (Guj.) (para 27) distinguished.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Collector of Central Excise v. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. 1997 taxmann.com 1311 (SC) (para 6.5)
  • Paper Products Ltd. v. CCE 1999 taxmann.com 336 (SC) (para 6.7)
  • West Coast Waterbase (P.) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [2016] 95 VST 370 (Guj.) (para 6.9)
  • Samsung India Electronics (P.) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [R/Special Civil Application No. 6109 of 2019, dated 28-3-2019] (Guj.) (para 6.9)
  • Dipakkumar Kantilal Chotai, In re [2021] 123 taxmann.com 269 (Guj.) (para 7)
  • Ayurveda Pharmacy v. State of Tamil Nadu [1989] 2 SCC 285 (para 7.1)
  • State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemical Corpn. Ltd. 2008 taxmann.com 1084 (SC) (para 7.1)
  • CCE v. R.M. Foods [2010] 2 taxmann.com 945 (CESTAT – AHD.) (para 24).