IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, JJ.
Mega Flex Plastics Limited and Another – Appellants
Versus
The Union of India and Others – Respondents
MAT No. 364 of 2023, IA No. CAN 1 of 2023, IA No. CAN 2 of 2023, IA No. CAN 5 of 2024
Decided On : 19-05-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background and history of the tax classification dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 26 , 27) |
| 2. appellant contends that polypropylene leno bags should be classified as textiles under hsn 6305. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. respondents argue that past voluntary declarations and judicial precedent favor classification as plastic products. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. interpretation of whether plastic-based woven bags meet the technical criteria to be classified as 'textile' articles. (Para 25 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 5. the principle that there is no estoppel against the operation of law regarding correct tariff classification. (Para 28) |
| 6. final order of the court regarding the dismissal of the appeal. (Para 34) |
JUDGMENT :
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
1. Appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated February 10, 2023 passed in WPA 3667 of 2019 by the learned Single Judge.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.
3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, appellant is a manufacturer of polypropylene leno bags. He has contended that, the major raw material used in the manufacture of polypropylene leno bags is plastic granules.
4. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, prior to the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the appellant voluntarily declared the finished products under Chapter Heading 3923 2900 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and enjoyed the duty drawback. With the introduction of the Act of 2017, the Tariff Heading of the same product, having the same composition and involving the same process of manufacturing, has been changed to 6305 33 00, except that the rate of tax has become higher.
5. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the appellant declared polypropylene leno bags for export under the Tariff Heading 3923 2900 and marketed the same product in the domestic market under the Tariff Heading 6305 33 00 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as made applicable to GST by Notification No. 1/2017-Central Excise Rate dated June 28, 2017.
6. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, polypropylene leno bags manufactured by the appellant are more in the nature of a textile product and is specifically covered under Chapter Heading 6305 33 00 of the First Schedule of the Act of 1975. Appellant had applied for an advance ruling in Form GST AAR-01 before the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), GST, on April 09, 2018, seeking an advance ruling on the classification of polypropylene leno bags under Chapter Heading 6305 33 00. By order dated July 06, 2018, the AAR had held that the polypropylene leno bags manufactured by the appellant can be classified under Chapter Heading 6305 33 00, if the same is made from woven polypropylene fabric using strips not exceeding a width of 5mm and without any impregnation, coating, excess or lamination with plastic.
7. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the respondent no. 3 had preferred an appeal before the West Bengal Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling against the order dated July 06, 2018 of AAR. The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, by its order dated October 25, 2018, has set aside the order dated July 06, 2018 passed by the AAR.
8. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the respondent no. 1 on December 31, 2018 issued Circular bearing no. 80/54/2018-GST dated December 12, 2018 clarifying that polypropylene woven and non-woven bags and polypropylene woven and non-woven bags laminated with BOPP would be classified as plastic bags under HSN Code 3923 and would attract 18% GST.
9. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, although the Circular dated December 12, 2018, was challenged in the prayer of the writ petition, durin
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sundaram Spinning Mills
Ess Dee Carpet Industry Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Dunlop India Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Collector of Central Excise, Bhopal Vs. Minwool Rock Fibres Limited
Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar-I Vs. Champdany Industries Limited
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the product in question is made from plastic granules and cannot be treated as textile articles, as uniformly adopted by the Appellate Authori....
The classification of goods under the Customs Tariff Act must align with their actual characteristics, particularly distinguishing between fully and partially coated fabrics.
The court established that woven fabrics, regardless of raw material, are classified as textiles under GST, ensuring uniformity in tax treatment across similar products.
The burden of proof for product classification lies with the taxing authority, and mere assertions without evidence are insufficient to justify classification decisions.
The DGFT's circular improperly restricted FPS benefits contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy, reaffirming that products described under ITC HS code 5407 are entitled to benefits without retroactive li....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.