Page 126 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

452 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
7.8 As the applicant has failed to submit any evidence to support their
claim of chapter heading 2309 90 90 for their product, and therefore the ap-
plicant is not entitled to claim NIL rate of duty under as per Notification
2/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 and corresponding notification issued
under MPGST Act. We hold accordingly.”
8. Rulling of earlier order dated 2-1-2020
“(Under Section 98 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the
Madhya Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017)
(1) The product “Preparation of a kind used in Animal Feeding - Bio
Processed Meal” is not entitled to classify under HS code - 2309
90 90 and therefore not entitled for the benefit of Notification
No. 2/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-17 and corresponding noti-
fication issued under MPGST Act.
(2) This ruling is valid subject to the provisions under section
103(2) until and unless declared void under Section 104(1) of
the GST Act.”
9. Submission of applicant under Section 102 of CGST Act, 2017 and
Record of personal hearing dated 27-2-2020.
The applicant submitted application dated 28/29-1-2020 & dated 10-2-
2020 under Section 102 of CGST Act, 2017 pointing out the error apparent on face
of the record for amendment of the Order No. 01/2020, dated 2-1-2020. Shri Ravi
Shankar Raichoudhary Advocate of the applicant, has appeared for Personal
Hearing on 27-2-2020 and reiterated the points mentioned in their further sub-
mission dated 28/29-1-2020 and 10-2-2020.
10. Error apparent on the face of the record being pointed out by the
applicant vide application dated 7-2-2019 under [Section] 102 of CGST Act, 2017
for amendment of the Order Number 01/2020 as referred above.
(i) The applicant wishes to draw attention of Section 102 (Rectification
of advance ruling) of the CGST Act, 2017 which reads as under :
The Authority or the Appellate Authority [or the National Appel-
late Authority] may amend any order passed by it under section 98
or section 101 [or section 101C, respectively], so as to rectify any er-
ror apparent on the face of the record, if such error is noticed by the
Authority or the Appellate Authority [or the National Appellate
Authority] on its own accord, or is brought to its notice by the con-
cerned officer, the jurisdictional officer, the applicant [, appellant,
the Authority or the Appellate Authority] within a period of six
months from the date of the order :
Provided that no rectification which has the effect of enhancing the
tax liability or reducing the amount of admissible input tax credit
shall be made unless the applicant or the appellant has been given
an opportunity of being heard.
(ii) The applicant in their forwarding letter dated 28/29-1-2020 also has
drawn attention of the AAR that :
The Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. Commr., Income Tax,
Rajkot v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. - 2008 (230) E.L.T. 385
(S.C.) has given direction regarding the matter of dealing with recti-
fication of mistake. The relevant portion of the order reads as under :

GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  126