Classification Rate case laws

Chehar Industry (P.) Ltd., In re

Chehar Industry (P.) Ltd. approached the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (4 August 2026) as a manufacturer-trader of bar- or cake-form laundry soaps used for washing clothes and textiles, seeking correct HSN classification and GST rate. The bench (Members Malani and Vora) distinguished these products from toilet soaps by composition and end use. It held them classifiable as laundry soaps under sub-heading 34011 and taxable at 18% under Entry No. 66 of Schedule-II to Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17 September 2025, read with Sections 9 and 10 CGST on levy and composition where relevant. The ruling gives CAs a clear product-based line between laundry and toilet soap categories for rate purposes. Facts are limited to the applicant’s stated manufacturing pattern; other formulations may need separate rulings.

Indian Wire Products Company, In re

In favour of the revenue

On appeal, the West Bengal Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (Appeal Case No. 02/WBAAAR/APPEAL/2026, 10 July 2026) considered Indian Wire Products Company’s restaurant model involving supply of tobacco-based and herbal hookah flavours through hookah apparatus alongside food and beverages. The issue was whether such supplies were composite restaurant service under paragraph 6(b) of Schedule II and Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), or separate supplies of goods. The AAAR held that merely bundling hookah flavours with restaurant facilities did not bring those flavour supplies within the restaurant service entry; they remained supplies of goods to be classified and rated under applicable goods notifications, with Sections 7, 8 and 9 CGST governing scope and levy. Outcome favoured revenue’s characterisation as non-restaurant service supplies. Operators mixing hookah retail with dining should treat flavour supplies as goods unless facts differ materially.

Renganathan & Sons v. Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

In favour of the assessee

Renganathan & Sons, tobacco trader (Madras High Court, WP(MD) 26461 of 2025, 1 June 2026, G.R. Swaminathan, J.) disputed reclassification imposing higher compensation cess. Department treated product as manufactured tobacco under CETH 2403 99 entries after petitioner sprinkled jaggery water, shade-dried and bulked raw tobacco. Court found no manufacture altering essential character under Section 9 chargeability principles; processes were preparatory handling of unmanufactured tobacco classifiable under CETH 2401 20 90. Higher cess categories 2403 99 10/90 inapplicable. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Classification turns on whether processes amount to manufacture, not mere physical treatment or packaging. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice. Material facts and holdings are drawn from the reported judgment.