|
|
Database updates
Judgments
Commissioner of Central Excise vs Saraswati Rubber Works (P) Limited
[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, 31 Aug 2010]
Excise - Indirect Tax - Central Excise Act, 1944, ss. 2(b), 11A and 35G - Jurisdiction - Deputy Commissioner - Proceedings were initiated against respondent on the ground of shortage of finished goods and raw materials - Adjudication authority confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty on respondent - On appeal, said order was set aside on the ground that as per circular of the Board dt. 27.2.1997, only Additional Commissioner is to deal with the matter involving suppression of facts or contravention of rules with intention to evade duty - Said view has been upheld by the Tribunal - Hence, present appeal - Whether the Show Cause Notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner within period of 6 months from the date of detection of shortages is beyond his jurisdiction? - Held, SC in Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE 2005 INDLAW SC 122, held that order of the adjudicating authority could not be set aside on the ground that the work was allotted to a different officer under the circular of the Board - It was held that u/s. 2(b) of the Act, 'Central Excise Officer' included any officer specified therein - Under s. 11A of the Act, 'Central Excise Officer' could deal with the matter - In view of definition of 'Central Excise Officer', the circular of the Board could not have the effect to nullify the statutory power u/s. 11A of the Act - Following said judgment, orders of the Commissioner and tribunal set aside and matter remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision - Appeal allowed.
|
Commissioner of Central Excise vs Crossby Advertising
[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, 23 Aug 2010]
|
Sagar Knitters vs Union of India and others
[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, 17 Aug 2010]
|
Commissioner of Central Excise vs Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Limited
[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, 16 Aug 2010]
|
(1) Madhav Steel; (2) R. J. Virwadia, Madhav Steel vs (1) Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice; (2) Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi; (3) Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs; (4) Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 10 Aug 2010]
|
Commissioner of Central Excise vs Aabhas Spinners (P) Limited
[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, 10 Aug 2010]
|
(1) Malaysian Airlines; (2) Saudi Arabian Airlines; (3) North West Airlines; (4) Kenya Airways Limited vs (1) Union of India; (2) Joint Secretary (Camp Mumbai) Government of India; (3) Commissioner of Customs (Appeals); (4) Deputy Commissioner of Customs
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 09 Aug 2010]
Indirect Tax - Customs - Finance Act, 1979, s. 38(3) - Foreign Travel Tax Rules, 1979 - Imposition of penalty u/s. 38(3) of the Finance Act, 1979 for delay in payment of Foreign Travel Tax (FTT) to the Government - Petitioner was a Airline Company engaged in the business of carrying passengers between various locations in India and abroad - Petitioner in the course of its business collected FTT from passengers going abroad in accordance with the Finance Act and FTT Rules - Petitioner for the months of April, August, September and December, 2001 failed to pay the FTT within the stipulated period - Show cause notices were issued to the petitioner - Adjudicating authority imposed penalty for late payment of FTT - Appeals filed thereagainst dismissed - Hence, present writ petition - (A) Whether authorities below were justified in imposing and sustaining penalty in consonance with subsection (3) of s. 38 of the Act ignoring proviso to r. 11 of the FTT Rules? - Held, a delegated legislation would have to be read in the context of the primary statute under which it is made and, in case of any conflict, it is primary legislation that will prevail - R. 11 runs contrary to the provision of the Act - There is a clear conflict between the proviso to r. 11 and s. 38(3), the substantive provision of the Act - Reconciliation thereof is not possible - Rule being sub-ordinate legislation cannot override the provision of primary legislation - Hence, submission of the petitioners that the penalty must be in consonance with proviso to r. 11 of the FTT Rules and not in line with s. 38(3) of the Act is without any substance - (B) Whether power to impose penalty under section 38(3) of the Act is exercisable only in case of "failure to pay the tax" and not where there is only a delay in the payment of tax? - Held, concept of failure to pay can be quoted with non-payment - As per the provisions of the Act, amount of FTT collected becomes due within fifteen days from the date of collection thereof - Failure to pay within this prescribed time frame would mean non-payment or failure to pay - If any person fails to pay within the statutory period of fifteen days, then such person is well within the sweep of the words "failure to pay" - Once the period of fifteen days is over and breach in payment of tax is committed, then it is immaterial when the defaulter in future is making the payment - (C) Mens rea - Held, question as to whether mens rea is essential ingredient or not depends upon the nature of the right of the parties and the purpose of penalty for which penalty is sought to be imposed - S. 38 of the Act nowhere fastens criminal liability - Penalty leviable under Chapter-V or u/s. 38 of the Act is penalty in case of default or failure of statutory obligation or in other words for breach of civil obligation - Therefore, there is no need to establish proof of criminal motive or any mens rea on the part of the defaulter - Petitions dismissed.
|
Luxmi Oil and Vanaspati Private Limited vs Commissioner Central Excise
[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 06 Aug 2010]
Excise - Land & Property - Central Excise Rules, 1944, r. 230 - Recovery of excise dues - 'X' mortgaged its unit with the U.P. Financial Corporation (UPFC) for a loan - It defaulted in the payment of loan, therefore, UPFC took possession of the unit and advertised it for sale - Petitioner offered to purchase the aforesaid unit and its tender was accepted by the UPFC - In pursuance of the above acceptance, UPFC executed a sale in favour of the Directors of the Company - Subsequently, two demand notices were issued and served upon the petitioner requiring it to pay excise dues of Rs. 36,57,000/- (Excise dues of previous owners) - Petitioner filed present petition submitting that Directors of the petitioner are bonafide purchasers in good faith of the property in dispute for valuable consideration and since the property has been purchased through public sale from UPFC free from all encumbrances, petitioner or its directors are not liable for payment of any excise dues which may be outstanding against the previous owner of the unit - Whether the excise dues of the previous owner can be recovered from the successor of the property? - Held, UPFS being a secured creditor by virtue of the mortgage qua the excise dues had a preferential right over the property - Excise Department neither by any covenant nor by any provision of law had any charge over the property - Thus, UPFC rightly invoked its preferential claim and transferred the property - The Central Excise had no 'charge' over the property therefore it had no right to recover such dues from subsequent purchasers, who happens to be bonafide purchasers - Petitioner having purchased the property free from all encumbrances and without any 'charge' was not liable for the payment of any excise dues which may be outstanding in the name of the previous owners - Writ petition allowed.
|
Sai Shipping Company Private Limited vs (1) Union of India; (2) Commissioner of Customs (Appeals); (3) Asst. Commissioner of Customs
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 04 Aug 2010]
|
(1) Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II Commissionerate; (2) Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai vs (1) Tarpaulin International and others; (2) Rohini Mills Private Limited; (3) Geotex Mills Private Limited; (4) Bharat Textile Proofing Industries Limited; (5) Pondicherry Water Proofers; (6) F. Harley and Company
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 04 Aug 2010]
Excise - Indirect Tax - Central Excise Act, 1944, s. 2(f) - Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, chapter sub-heading 63.01 - Noticee was carrying on the business of producing and selling 'tarpaulin made-ups' - Noticee stated that the process of mere cutting, stitching and putting eyelets does not amount to manufacture and hence, the department cannot levy Excise Duty on tarpaulin made-ups - However, view of the department was that the "made-ups" prepared by means of cutting, stitching and fixing of eye-lets amounts to manufacture and, hence, they are exigible to duty under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Show cause notice was issued to noticee - Commissioner held that the tarpaulin made-ups were specifically covered under Tariff heading 63.01 - On appeal, Tribunal held that no 'manufacture' was involved in the conversion of Tarpaulin made-ups - Hence, present appeal - (A) Whether process of converting 'Tarpaulin Fabrics' into 'Tarpaulin made-ups' would amount to manufacture as defined u/s. 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944? - Held, word manufacture means production of an article for use from raw or prepared materials, by giving these materials new form, quality, properties or combinations whether by hand labour or machinery - Word includes any process incidental or ancillary to the process of manufactured product - In the present case, process does not change basic characteristic of the raw material and end product - Process of stitching and fixing eyelets would not amount to manufacturing process, since tarpaulin after stitching and eyeleting continues to be only cotton fabrics - Process does not bring into existence a new and distinct product with total transformation in the original commodity - Therefore, there can be no levy of Central Excise duty on the tarpaulin made-ups - Tribunal rightly held that conversion of Tarpaulin into Tarpaulin made-ups would not amount to manufacture - (B) Condition which needs to be satisfied for levy of Excise Duty - Held, to attract duty there should be a manufacture to result in different Goods and the Goods sought to be subject to duty should be known in the market as such - Appeals dismissed.
|
Commissioner of Service Tax vs Convergys India Private Limited
[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, 03 Aug 2010]
|
Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Customs House vs Sea Bulk Offshore LLC
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 03 Aug 2010]
|
(1) Buhari Sons Private Limited; (2) Hotel Imperial vs (1) State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department; (2) Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai; (3) Assistant Revenue Officer, Corporation of Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 29 Jul 2010]
Municipalities & Local Governments - Indirect Tax - Revised tax - Demand - Failure to avail the alternative remedy - 3rd respondent/Revenue Officer issued Demand Notice and Final Warrant to petitioners demanding property tax - Petitioner challenged the demand before the HC - HC directed the petitioner to pursue its remedy before the Taxation Appeal Committee - Petitioner filed appeal before the Taxation Appellate Tribunal - Respondent issued impugned notice to petitioner demanding to pay the revised tax, without waiting for the outcome of the appeal - Whether impugned demand for revised tax is legal - Held, petitioners failed to avail remedy before the Taxation Appellate Tribunal by raising appropriate objections, which had got nothing to do with the demand and current revision for which notice was given and no objection was raised - Therefore, HC cannot entertain writ petitions especially when the previous order had become final and no challenge was made to those orders - If the petitioners are aggrieved by the present demand, it was open to them to move the Tribunal against the revised tax demands - Petition dismissed.
|
R. K. S. Films Private Limited, Through Prop. Raj Kumar Shahabadi (Tax) vs State of Uttar Pradesh, Through Secy. Information and others
[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 28 Jul 2010]
|
National Leather Cloth Manufacturing Co. vs Union of India and another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 23 Jul 2010]
Excise - Indirect Tax - Central Excise Act, 1944, s. 4(4)(d)(i) - Assessable value - Cost of secondary packing - Assessee was engaged in the manufacture of coated fabrics and declared price of the same by price list which was approved by the revenue - Assessee filed revised price list of impugned goods and indicated in the same that prices declared by them earlier contained certain post manufacturing expenses, which had to be excluded while computing the value of the fabric for the purpose of assessment to excise duty - Adjudicating Authority rejected said claim and held that the packing of coated fabrics in polythene bags for delivery to the customers located in Bombay as also packing of three such rolls in hessian cloth and stitching them into one bundle for dispatch to up-country customers was in the normal course of trade and, therefore, there was nothing special about such packing so as to exclude its cost from the value of the fabric - Order of the Adjudicating Authority has been affirmed by the HC - Hence, present appeal - Whether the cost of packing of fabric in hessian cloth, is includible in the assessable value of the coated fabric manufactured by the assessee for the purpose of levy of excise duty? - Held, admittedly the fabric manufactured by the assessee was sold by the assessee to the wholesalers at the factory gate only in polythene bags, the further packing of three rolls in hessian cloth was not in the course of normal delivery to the customers in the wholesale trade at the factory gate and was, therefore, not required to make the product marketable - The additional packing in the nature of a secondary packing was done for the purpose of convenience of the up-country customers in the transportation of the goods manufactured by the assessee - Hence, the cost of secondary packing in hessian cloth cannot be included in the value of the goods in terms of s. 4(4)(d)(i) of the Act for the purpose of assessment of excise duty - Impugned order set aside - Appeal partly allowed.
|
(1) State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Commissioner and Secretary, Revenue Department; (2) District Collector (Revenue); (3) Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Government of Tamil Nadu vs (1) P. Jeyaraman @ P.J. Raman; (2) Anaimalai Vattara Agriculturists Welfare Association by its Secretary, A. Shanmugasundaram
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 23 Jul 2010]
Agriculture & Agri. Products - Indirect Tax - Fixation of land revenue - Justifiability - Appellant/State constructed a dam and as a result, water supply to the respondent/farmers' agricultural land got affected - Subsequently, appellant revised the land classification and land revenue rate of respondents' agricultural land - Appellant, by G.O. Ms. No.2510, Revenue dated 7-3-1970 and its consequential order dated 8-3-1987, revised land classification and land revenue rates - Respondents challenged the revision of land classification and land revenue rate before the HC - Respondent contended that before resorting to such action, the appellant had not undertaken the mandatory exercise of re-classification or enquiring the affected parties, namely, the farmers and therefore, respondent's rights u/art. 14 had been violated - Single Judge quashed the G.O.Ms. No. 2510 as arbitrary - Hence the present appeal by State - Held, considering the plight of the farmers, the Government issued another G.O. Ms. No.223, Revenue Department dated 7-7-2009 in the meantime, wherein it would make clear that the Government had relaxed the stringent method of collecting the land tax from the farmers - Government, by its latest G.O. Ms. No.223, gave up the earlier fixation of land revenue - When it was accepted in the present G.O. Ms. No.223, which was issued during the pendency of the present writ appeals, that the government is collecting different rate than what was fixed in the earlier Government Order, it has to be construed that the present Government Order was issued to help the farmers - Therefore, the Government itself has passed a consolidated Government Order nullifying the earlier Government Orders, which are the subject matter of the writ petitions as well as the present writ appeals and therefore, the relief sought for in the present writ appeals by the Government has become infructuous - Appeal dismissed.
|
C. Mahendiran vs Regional Transport Officer, Nagapattinam
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 21 Jul 2010]
Carriers & Transportation - Indirect Tax - Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 - Demand of vehicle tax - Violation of principles of natural justice - Petitioner was issued the contract carriage permit for his vehicle by State Transport Authority - Respondent/Regional Transport Officer issued show-cause notice to petitioner demanding vehicle tax - Petitioner gave reply to the show-cause notice - Respondent demanded tax for one full quarter - Whether the impugned order is valid - Held, copy of the report on the basis of which the impugned order passed was not supplied to the petitioner - No opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner and if such hearing was granted, the petitioner would have been able to demonstrate that the levy of tax was without jurisdiction - Check Officer's report was also not furnished to the petitioner, which was also a basis of impugned order - Principles of natural justice are violated - Therefore, impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration - Petition allowed.
|
(1) Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Custom House; (2) Biomed Hitech Industries Limited, Represented by its Executive Director vs (1) Biomed Hitech Industries Limited; (2) Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal; (3) Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port-Export), Custom House; (4) Assistant Commissioner of Customs (EPCG), Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port-Export)
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 21 Jul 2010]
Customs - Practice & Procedure - Customs Act, 1962, ss. 3, 5(2), 122, 129-A - Appeal against the order of Chief Commissioner of Customs - Maintainability - 1st respondent imported capital goods under Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme with zero duty vide license issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade in terms of Notification No.111/95 dated 5-6-1995 - Directorate of Revenue intelligence (DRI) send a show-cause notice to 1st respondent alleging that 1st respondent had wrongfully availed of the benefit of the notification by mis-declaration - Chief Commissioner of Customs adjudicated 1st respondent's case u/s. 5(2) of the Act and dropped the charges against 1st respondent - Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal u/s. 129-A of the Act - Tribunal returned the appeal as not maintainable on the ground that an appeal u/s. 129-A of the Act would only be maintainable against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and not that of Chief Commissioner of Customs - (A) Whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable since the appeal was filed against an order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Customs - Held, Chief Commissioner of Customs passing any order as an adjudicating authority of the officer at the level of Commissioner of Customs would be an order which can be subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal as provided u/s. 129 of the Act - Chief Commissioner of Customs also would include a Commissioner of Customs in a case where he exercises the power of the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) and in such an eventuality the Chief Commissioner of Customs becomes a proper officer and an adjudicating authority - Chief Commissioner of Customs can step into the shoes of the Commissioner (Adjudication) and acts in such a capacity while discharging his function u/s. 5(2) of the Act - Mere fact that the Chief Commissioner of Customs has signed the original order of adjudication as Chief Commissioner of Customs cannot make the said order as the one passed by the Chief Commissioner of Customs in its own capacity but the same has to be construed as the one passed by the Commissioner (Adjudication) - Therefore, Tribunal was not right in dismissing the appeal in question as not maintainable - (B) Whether the Tribunal was right in ignoring the provisions of s. 5(2) of the Act empowering an officer of Customs to exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed under the Act on any other officer of Customs who is subordinate to him - Held, Commissioner of Customs is subordinate to the Chief Commissioner of Customs and Chief Commissioner of Customs has the power to act as an adjudicating authority and thereby, he can exercise the power of Commissioner in such circumstances - Conjoint reading of s. 3 and s. 5(2) clearly indicated that Chief Commissioner of Customs can exercise the power of Commissioner (Adjudication) and in turn Commissioner of Customs can exercise the power of his subordinates - Therefore, power has been exercised u/s. 5(2) of the Act by the Chief Commissioner of Customs was in accordance with hierarchy provided u/s. 3 of the Act - (C) Whether the Tribunal was right in not considering that in the case on hand the Chief Commissioner of Customs passed the order in appeal exercising his powers as Commissioner of Customs - Held, Chief Commissioner of Customs decided the case as a Commissioner (Adjudication) and not on his own - U/s. 122 of the Act only the Commissioner of Customs has been made as an adjudicating authority and as against the order passed by him an appeal would lie u/s. 129-A of the Act - Therefore, the mere fact that u/s. 129-A does not mention about the Chief Commissioner of Customs itself is a clear indicative of the fact that the order is passed by him only as an Commissioner (Adjudication) and not as a Chief Commissioner of Customs - Therefore, the Tribunal was not right in not considering that in the case on hand the Chief Commissioner of Customs passed the order in appeal exercising is powers as Commissioner of Customs - Petition dismissed.
|
AVI Steel Traders vs Commissioner of Central Excise
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 21 Jul 2010]
|
Noble Moulds Private Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 19 Jul 2010]
|
Naresh Sharma vs Union of India and others
[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, 16 Jul 2010]
|
State of Andhra Pradesh vs Gourishetty Mahesh and others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 15 Jul 2010]
Criminal - Excise - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 482 - Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, ss. 34(e), 41 and 42 - Quashing of proceeding - Investigating Officer seized respondent's vehicle as it was carrying black jaggery used for producing alcohol unfit for consumption - Respondents filed petition u/s. 482 of CrPC for quashing of proceeding before HC submitting that HC released the same impugned good on furnishing Bank Guarantee by the respondent on excise matter - HC allowed criminal petition of quashing the proceedings against the respondents - Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed present special leave - Whether HC rightly quashed the criminal proceeding against the respondents? - Held, while exercising jurisdiction u/s. 482 of the Code, the HC would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not which is the function of the trial Judge/Court - Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, otherwise, it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly - At the same time, s. 482 is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its closure without full-fledged enquiry - In the present case, apart from specific allegations about the transportation of jaggery for preparation of illicit distilled liquor, prosecution also placed reliance on laboratory analysis report stating that the transported jaggery was fit for fermentation to produce alcohol unfit for consumption - In those circumstances, whether the raw material in existence would be sufficient for holding the accused persons concerned guilty or not has to be considered only at the time of trial - Further, at the time of framing the charge, it can be decided whether prima facie case has been made out showing the commission of offence and involvement of the charged persons - It is immaterial whether the case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence - The acceptability of the materials to fasten culpability on the accused persons is a matter of trial - Hence, HC was not justified in quashing the FIR - SC has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case except holding that interference by the HC at the threshold is not warranted - Appeal allowed.
|
Yashpal Gupta vs Union of India and others
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 15 Jul 2010]
|
Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore vs N.I. Systems (India) Private Limited
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 15 Jul 2010]
Customs - Indirect Tax - Customs Tariff Act, 1975, headings 8471,9031 and 9032 - Classification - PXI Controllers, Input/Output Modules, Signal Converters and Chassis and its parts - Importer claimed impugned items as computers and/or parts of computers and classified them under Customs Tariff Heading 8471 - Importer submitted that imported items cannot perform any specific function unless the end-users have an appropriate programming software - Original Authority rejected the importer's classification of impugned items and classified same under Chapter 90 - Commissioner dismissed appeal filed against said order - Tribunal allowed appeal filed against said order and held that PXI Controller per se is not a measuring instrument and it can be used only in conjunction with an independent measuring instrument with suitable interface, hence, the PXI Controller/ other Controllers imported by the assessee cannot be classified under Chapter 90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Hence, present appeal - Whether impugned items are classifiable under chapter heading 8471 or under chapter 90 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975? - Held, in order to attract Note 5(E) of Chapter 84 the real test is whether or not the machine imported is performing a specific function relatable to the functional unit as a whole - The said machine should be seen as a System - As a functional unit, the imported machine should perform a function other than data processing or it should perform a function in addition to data processing - The sentence in Chapter Note 5(E) 'incorporating or working in conjunction with an ADPM' merely indicates that the overall package, which is presented before the Department, had an ADP Machine in it - Moreover, if the contention of the importer is accepted, it would mean that every machine that contains an element of ADP would be classifiable as an ADP Machine under Chapter 84 - This would completely obliterate the specific function test and the concept of functional unit - Imported items were rightly classified by the Department under Chapter 90 - Impugned order of tribunal set aside - Revenue's appeal allowed.
|
In Bloom The Leela Kempinski Bombay Sahar vs Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 15 Jul 2010]
Sales Tax - Indirect Tax - Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, ss. 2(17), 5, 41, 61, Sch. entry A-36, Sch. entry C-II-152 - Applicant, a Florist and decorator engaged in preparing natural (fresh) flowers bouquets, filed application before Commr. of Sales Tax for determining the rate of tax on "fresh flowers bouquets" - An Invoice by which applicant had sold fresh flowers bouquet for Rs.250/- annexed with the application - "Bouquet of fresh flowers" held to be covered by residuary entry C-II-152 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 making sales thereof liable for sales tax at 13% - Appeal by the applicant before the Tribunal alleging that same was covered by entry A-36 dismissed - Present reference by the Sales Tax Tribunal - Whether 'Bouquet of fresh flowers' is covered by the schedule entry A-36 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 pertaining to 'Natural flowers' or by the Residuary Schedule entry C-II-152 and hence liable to tax at 13% - Held, Sch. entry A-36 reads "Natural flowers including Mahua flowers" - If the 'flower bouquet' is an arrangement of cut flowers, such arrangement of cut flowers by itself would not convert the said flowers into a different commercial commodity nor will it amount to an activity which would have an impact on the nature of the goods and will therefore not fall within the definition of the word "manufacture" - In the present case the invoice submitted by the applicant shows description of the goods as "fresh flowers bouquet", thus considering the simple arrangement of fresh flowers, the questions answered in the negative, in favour of the applicant and against the Revenue - Order accordingly.
|
|