Page 128 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

454 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
(d) Subsequently vide letter dated 18-11-2019 the applicant submitted
that the words ‘The protein content of the feed grade is less than 50% and
not fit for human consumption’ should be read as ‘The protein content of
the feed grade is less than 52%’.
(e) Regarding changing of protein content from less than 50% to “up to
52%” is concerned, the applicant wishes to submit that sometimes it
receives raw material with protein content more than 50% but not
exceeding 52%. Hence, in order to give a true and correct picture be-
fore the authority of advance ruling, they made the necessary
changes. Regarding removal of words ’and not fit for human consump-
tion’ is concerned, the applicant wishes to submit that the said
words pertain to the raw material of the product under considera-
tion i.e. ‘Bio Processed Meal’. It has got no bearing on the use of
their finished product and classification of their final product. The
final product will only be used for animal feeding and not for any
other purpose. The final product will not be suitable for human consump-
tion because of presence of higher bacterial counts.
(f) The aforesaid text [starting line of para 15(f) as mentioned above] is
related to for the raw material to be used in the manufacture of fin-
ished products.
The authority for advance ruling by mistake took this plea that the
words ‘the protein content of the feed grade is less than 52%’ were
meant for finished products whereas a continuous reading of Para
15(f) “The raw material for the preparation of bio-processed meal is soya-
bean meal feed grade falling under HS Code 2304 00 30. The protein con-
tent of the feed grade is less than 50% and not fit for human consumption”
clearly indicates that this part of the submission relates to raw mate-
rials and not for the finished products as observed by the authority
of advance ruling. Thus, it is amply clear that on the face of the or-
der error has been occurred and so for rectification of error Section
102 of CGST Act, 2017 is rightly applicable.
(g) The authority of advance ruling also observed that there are no evi-
dences in support of the applicant’s claim that the said products
under HS Code 2309 90 90 is far from the truth as the process of fer-
mentation of the raw materials etc., for manufacturing of the product has
been discussed in detail to prove the fact that the end product will be used
for preparation of a kind used in animal feeding. Accordingly, the appli-
cant has declared at the end of para 15(f) that the product will only
used for animal feeding and not for any other purpose. This declaration
by the applicant was meant for the finished product and by mistake
cognizance of this fact was not taken by the authority of advance
ruling.
(h) The aforesaid facts leave no doubt that the product soya meal being
manufactured by the applicant through fermentation process will
only be used for animal feeding and not for any other purpose. Ac-
cordingly, it should be classified under HS Code 2309 90 90.
(i) The various decisions and explanatory Note explanation quoted in
the application on classification of animal feed was not discussed by
the authority of advance ruling. This declaration “the product being

GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  128