Order Date – 20 October 2023

Parties: NEUVERA WELLNESS VENTURES P. LTD. Vs C.C.MUNDRA

Key Pointers –

• The Appellant, NEUVERA WELLNESS VENTURES P. LTD., has availed the exemption Notification No. 1/2017 under Serial No. 453 in respect of nutritional supplement imported by the appellant which are preparations of substances such as Creatine, Nitrates, Glutamine and Amino Acid.
• The department has contended that all such products are categorized under food preparation not elsewhere specified or included as provided under Sr. No. 9 of schedule IV of Notification 1/2017. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued demanding differential duty.
• The issue involved here is whether the above products are classifiable under CTSH2106 9099, are liable to IGST at 28% under Sr.No.9 of Schedule IV of Notification No.1/2017-IGST-Rate or at 18% under Sr. No.453 of Schedule III of the said Notification?
• The Tribunal observed that from the entry of Serial No. 9 there are certain specific items which are covered in the description of goods under Serial No. 9 wherein the impugned goods of the appellant are not appearing, therefore, the tribunal is of view that, the appellant’s imported goods do not fall under Serial no. 9.
• From tariff entry 2106, it can be seen that the entry covers various food preparation not elsewhere specified or included. However, out of the many items provided under tariff item 2106, the serial No. 9 described only some of those goods. This also establish that Serial No. 9 is not a general entry which covers entire entry of 2106 but only some of the goods which are specified in the description of goods are provided under serial no. 9 of Schedule IV,.
• This fact also strengthens the claim of the appellant that their goods are not covered under serial no. 9 of the schedule IV of Notification 1/2017-IGST-Rate and correctly falls under Serial No. 453 according to which the rate of IGST is 18%, therefore, the demand of differential custom duty shall not sustain.
• Since there was no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant, the demand is also hit by limitation. Further, whatever IGST needs to be paid by the appellant, it was available as an input tax credit to them, therefore, the present case is involved revenue neutrality. Accordingly, the malafide intention cannot be attributed to the act of the appellant. For this reason, the demand for the extended period is not sustainable also on time bar.
• The appeal is allowed.