In sum therefore, it is submitted that the CNG Dispenser in question supplied by the Appellant does not have any pump or pumping function, i.e., an external force by virtue of which the CNG is transported from the filling station to the vehicle tank. This statement is undisputed as evident vide paragraph 5.9 of the Impugned Advance Ruling. Further, as required by the Explanatory Notes supra, the CNG Dispenser factually does not have any pump of a kind noted therein and therefore, cannot be classified in Heading 84.13 and covered vide SI. No. 117, Schedule IV of Notification No. 01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. Merely because the SI. No. 117, Schedule IV of Notification No. 01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.20 I 7uses the phrase "filling stations or garages" does not mean that the former part, viz., "pump for dispensing fuel" be ignored. It is trite that tariff entries must be literally interpreted and on a bare perusal of the same, it is necessary that there be a pump first, and such pump be used for dispensing fuel for coverage therein. Merely because the CNG dispensed by the CNG Dispenser supplied by the Appellant is a fuel used in motor vehicles, cannot be reason to hold that there is a pump. The requirement of the existence of a pump should be first independently satisfied and then the requirement of fuel or not be examined. In the present case, the Impugned Advance Ruling has erroneously held that because the CNG flows from one direction to the other, it is performing the function of a pump. However, as stated in the averments supra, such a conclusion is sans any logic and against the Explanatory Notes also.
