TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t aside and the order passed by the first appellate authority dated November 30, 2006 in No. CST. AP. 1/2006-07 is hereby restored the petition is allowed. The order dated May 15, 2008 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in STA No. 335 of 2007 is hereby set aside and the order passed by the first appellate authority dated November 30, 2006 in No. CST. AP. 1/2006-07 is hereby restored - STRP. No. 8 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 29-6-2011 - SABHAHIT V.G. AND RAVI MALIMATH, JJ. ORDER:- The order of the court was made by RAVI MALIMATH J. This appeal is by the Revenue being aggrieved by the order dated May 15, 2008 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in STA No. 335 of 2007. The assessee is a private limited company, eng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority who by the order dated November 30, 2006 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and held that the respondent's turnover of de-oiled cakes covered by C forms had to be subjected to tax at the rate two per cent and not four per cent. Accordingly, the assessment order under the CST Act was also modified. Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal. This appeal was admitted to consider the substantial question of law: (a) Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, can it be held that the order dated May 15, 2008 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in STA No. 534 of 2006 partly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification dated May 31, 2002 reduced the rate of tax from four per cent to two per cent, only so far as oiled cake is concerned. Accordingly, the benefit for the oiled cake has been granted to the assessee. The claim of the assessee that the oiled cake and the de-oiled cake are one and the same is unsustainable. The Tribunal committed an error in holding that the notifications have to be interpreted strictly without referring to the Schedules. Hence, it is contended that the order of the Tribunal requires to be set aside by confirming the orders of the assessing authority. Sri Keshava Murthy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contends that oiled cake and the de-oiled cake are one and the same. That both are final products ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame for various reasons as contended is wholly unsustainable. It cannot be contended that both the items oiled and de-oiled cake are one and the same especially in view of the fact that both the commodities are different and hence we are unable to accept the contention of the assessee. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The order dated May 15, 2008 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in STA No. 335 of 2007 is hereby set aside and the order passed by the first appellate authority dated November 30, 2006 in No. CST. AP. 1/2006-07 is hereby restored. The judgment of the court was delivered by MRS. B.V. NAGARATHNA J. The Revenue has preferred this appeal by challenging the order dated June 16, 2006 (B. S. Refrig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
