Page 119 - GSTL_13th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 2

2020 ] IN RE : SAINT-GOBAIN INDIA PVT. LTD. 205
Lande, Superintendent, Division-V, Range-V, Mumbai East, CGST also appeared
and made submissions. We heard both the sides.
5. Observations and findings :
5.1 We have gone through the facts of the case, documents on record
and submissions made by both, the applicant as well as the jurisdictional office.
5.2 The issue before us pertains to applicability of Notification for as-
certaining correct rate of tax in respect of Glass Reinforced Gypsum Board (GRG)
which is proposed to be manufactured by the applicant. On one hand the Appli-
cant has submitted that they are currently manufacturing both paper reinforced
and glass reinforced gypsum boards falling under Chapter 68 of the CTA, 1975
and on the other hard they have submitted that manufacture of Glass Reinforced
Gypsum Board is a proposed manufacturing activity to be undertaken by the
applicant. Therefore no samples have been submitted.
5.3 We observe that the applicant has made technical submissions with
respect to contents of the impugned product. They are intending to manufacture
the said goods and are seeking classification of the same but have not submitted
any samples of the impugned product.
5.4 Further, Section 97(2)(a) of the CGST Act, states that the question on
which the advance ruling is sought under the CGST Act, shall be in respect of
classification of any goods or services or both. Thus, questions may be raised by
an applicant in respect of classification of goods, supply of which is being under-
taken or proposed to be undertaken. To classify the impugned product, in light
of the submissions made by the applicant, it is imperative that the samples of the
same are produced before this authority in order to enable us to take a balanced
view in the matter especially since the applicant has made technical submissions
as well regarding the contents cf the impugned product.
5.4.1 The applicant has not submitted any samples of the products,
classification of which is sought by them. In the absence of non-submissions of
samples of the impugned product we are not able to arrive at any conclusions
with respect to the questions being raised by them. We agree with the submis-
sions made by the jurisdictional officer that the proposed product is not yet
manufactured and hence in absence of any sample of said product being tested
from accredited laboratory to determine exact nature of the product, its classifica-
tion cannot be arrived, at this stage.
5.5 As per Section 95 of the CGST Act, (a) “advance ruling” means a
decision provided by the Authority or the Appellate Authority to an applicant on
matters or on questions specified in sub-section (2) of Section 97 or sub-section
(1) of Section 100, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being un-
dertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant.
5.6 Hence for the purpose of applying for advance ruling, one must
raise questions specified in sub-section (2) of Section 97 or sub-section (1) of Sec-
tion 100, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken
or proposed to be undertaken. Thus, the said section says that, in the case of
goods, it is the supply being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken. It is not
the case that the manufacture of goods may be undertaken or proposed to be un-
dertaken. Thus, goods in respect of which supply being undertaken or proposed
to be undertaken, should be existing. In the subject case applicant has submitted
that they are proposing to manufacture the impugned product, which are pres-
GST LAW TIMES  13th August 2020  119