Page 108 - GSTL_16 April 2020_Vol 35_Part 3

322 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
(Tri. - Bom.)], CCE v. Shalimar Super Foods [2007 (210) E.L.T. 695 (Tri. - Mum.] &
CCE, Chennai v. Rajam Condiments [2009 (245) E.L.T. 706 (Tri. - Chennai)]. How-
ever, we are of the considered view that the said decisions are distinguishable in
the facts and circumstances of the case and of no assistance to the appellant as
the said decisions are not in the context of GST. The appellant has also relied up-
on the Advance Ruling(s) by the Authority for Advance Ruling, Maharashtra
and Authority for Advance Ruling, Haryana, in various cases including appel-
lant’s own case and Ruling by the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Ma-
harashtra in the case of M/s. Ahmednagar District Goat Rearing and Processing
Co-Op Federation Ltd. We find that the exact nature of the activities in these cas-
es is not before us, it is not possible to compare whether these cases are identical
to the instant case or not.
25. In view of the above, we hold that Branded Frozen Chicken packed
by the appellant in individual LDPE bag in predetermined number (one in num-
ber) and supplied to the Indian Army and Paramilitary forces in the HDPE bags
is leviable to GST in terms of Notification No. 1/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017
(as amended) and exemption from the levy of GST under Entry No. 9 of the Noti-
fication No. 2/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 (as amended) is not available to
such supplies. In view of the foregoing, we pass the following order :
ORDER
26. We reject the appeal filed by the appellant and uphold the Advance
Ruling dated 22-4-2019, rendered by the Rajasthan Authority for Advance Rul-
ing, Goods & Services Tax, Jaipur, holding that supply of Branded Frozen Chick-
en packed by the appellant in individual LDPE bag in predetermined quantities
(one in number) and supplied to the Indian Army and Paramilitary forces in the
HDPE bags as supply in Unit Container and not exempted under Entry No. 9 of
the Notification No. 2/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 (as amended).

_______

2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 322 (App. A.A.R. - GST - Mah.)
BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING
UNDER GST, MAHARASHTRA
Smt. Sungita Sharma and Shri Rajiv Jalota, Members
IN RE : ROTARY CLUB OF MUMBAI QUEENS NECKLACE
Order No. MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/15/2019-20, dated 6-11-2019 in Appeal
No. MAH/GST-AAAR-15/2019-20
1
Club membership fee - Contribution by Rotary Club members to-
wards Administration Account, recovered for expending it on weekly and
other meetings and other petty administrative expenses incurred including
expenses for location and light refreshments - Club not providing any specific
facility or benefits to its members against membership subscription charged
by it, as entire subscription amount spent towards meetings and administra-
tive expenditures only - Club not doing any business - Thus, it can be deduced

________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2019 (27) G.S.T.L. 127 (A.A.R. - GST).
GST LAW TIMES  16th April 2020  228