TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 4(1) of the Act, for the period pertaining to 7.6.2005 onwards? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case, was the Respondent -Authority justified in law in holding that 'Walkie Chappals' was liable to tax at the rate of 12.5% as non -scheduled goods falling under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, for the periods between 1.4.2005 to 6.6.2005? 2. Appellant is engaged in manufacture of Chappals at its unit in Bangalore. Entry 47 of the Third Schedule appended to the Act as it stood between the periods 1.4.2005 to 6.6.2005 would read as 'Plastic Footwear' for the purpose of levy of tax. It was subsequently substituted by Karnataka Act No. 27 of 2005. The substituted provision came into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade an Application before the Authority for Clarification seeking advance ruling/clarification on the above referred facts. After hearing, the Authority has chosen to pass the following order. '8. In view of the above, we made the following ruling. - Applicability of rate of tax on - (i) EVA Footwear from 4% Sl. No. 47 of Third Schedule to 1.4.2005 to 6.6.2005 the KVAT Act, 2003 (ii) EVA Footwear for the 12.5% under Section 4(1)(b) of the period from 7.6.2005 Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Onwards (iii) Walkie Chappals from 12.5% under Section 4(1)(b) of the 1.4.2005 onwards Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 It is in these circumstances, this Appeal is filed by raising the above referred questions of law. Sri R. V. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vided in paragraphs 6 and 7 are tenable. She wants the Appeal to be dismissed. After hearing, we have carefully perused the material placed on record. 7. Insofar as Walkie Chappal is concerned, we are concerned only for the period between 1.4.2005 to 6.6.2005. For this period, the Entry to reads as 'Plastic Footwear'. The material on record would show that the material used for upper portion is Man -made Fabric with plastic coating. That being the case, in our view, the reasoning of the Authority in para 6 of the order that it does not fall within the description of Plastic Footwear is acceptable. Therefore, we reject the contention of Mr. Prasad in this regard. 8. Insofar as EVA Chappal is concerned, we find substance i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
