Page 194 - GSTL_16th July 2020_Vol. 38_Part 3

432 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
sence of specific details”. The only conclusion we can draw from the order of the
AAR is that they seem to have been swayed by the fact that antique watches,
painting and jewelry are valuable products which cannot be classified in the cat-
egory of ’second-hand or used’. Also the fact that there is a separate tariff head-
ing for ‘Antiques’ in the form of Tariff Heading Code 9706 00 00 covering ‘An-
tiques exceeding 100 years’ seems to have influenced them. However, we wish to
point out that the classification of the goods does not have anything to do with
the application of Rule 32(5). The question of whether the rule will apply has to
be decided independently of the fitment of the product. There is nothing in Rule
32(5) which says that it is not applicable to valuable or precious objects or objects
having antique value. It is a settled principle of jurisprudence that when the
words of a statute are unambiguous and only one reasonable meaning can be
given to it, then the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning. Such words
have to be interpreted in their natural and ordinary sense. Therefore, the term
‘second-hand and used’ has to be given its ordinary meaning and nothing more
is to be attributed to it especially when the legislature has not chosen to expand
or contract its meaning. Antique pieces are also second-hand and used by people
before they come in the market. The paintings are bought by the appellant from
individual art collectors. It presupposes that the art collectors have bought it se-
cond-hand or used and then sold it to the appellant. It would be an entirely dif-
ferent thing if the appellant has bought the paintings from the artists themselves.
However, this is not the fact before us and we go entirely by the submissions of
the appellant that they have bought it from individual art collectors. If such is the
case, then there are no grounds to say that they are not second-hand or used. All
the categories - valuable paintings, antique watches, antique jewelry, though fall-
ing under the category of valuable goods, are at the same time also ‘second hand
or used goods’ and therefore they cannot be denied the benefit of Rule 32(5). We
feel that the term ‘antique books’ is evocative enough to describe what it contains
and the appellant can apply Rule 32(5) to it.
54. The AAR has not given any ruling on collectibles/memorabilia and
collectible books; the reason being given is that no specific details of such goods
are given. In the grounds of appeal presented before the AAR, the appellant has
described such goods as only ‘collectibles’ and ‘memorabilia and collectibles’.
They have not dwelt at length as to what commodities are covered in that cate-
gory. The appellant has stated that ‘collectibles and memorabilia’ encompasses
clothing, support equipment, spectacles, accessories etc. The above description is
of general nature. The appellant has not given any further description as to
whether they are bought from individual art collectors or not. Also, the appellant
has asked for separate ruling on collectible books and antique books. It is not
known whether they are same or not. Also no specific explanation is given as to
what is the difference between collectible books and antique books. For the above
reason, we agree with the Ruling of the AAR.
55. In view of the above deliberation, we hold the following :-
ORDER
56. The appellant is eligible to take benefit of Rule 32(5) for the prod-
ucts in TABLE 1 placed by them before us except items placed at 7 & 8. We can-
not give any ruling on items 7 & 8 and we agree with the observations of the
AAR on 7 & 8, that in absence of any specific description of the products con-
tained in them, no ruling can be given.
_______
GST LAW TIMES  16th July 2020  194