TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion in the present case, this Court is of the opinion that no cause for interference has been shown. SLP dismissed. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2683 OF 2012 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2023 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT And HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA For the Appellant : Mr. Prashant Chaudhary, AOR(N.P.) For the Respondent : Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, AOR ORDER There is no appearance on behalf of the appellant. The question which arises for this Court s consideration is whether PVC coated cotton fabrics are exempted from U.P. Trade Tax Act. On 5th June, 1985, amendments were carried out to the Schedule to the said Act. The concerned entry, which was sought to be relied upon by the revenue to tax the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustries and also commonly known as Cotton Coated Fabric (CCF) or leather/water proof cloth/PVC cloth are not included in Entry 53. It relied upon the classification in Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Chapter 59.03 specially Item 19 which read as: All varieties of fabrics manufactured either wholly or partly from cotton The Revenue, however, rejected the appellant s contention relying upon a previous decision of the High Court, for another period in the appellant s own case (The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow vs. M/s Laxmi Leather Cloth Industries, Noida, decided on 09.10.2007). In that decision the High Court noted the previous Entry in the Schedule to the Trade Tax Act and rejected the appellant s contention. The reasoni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and eventually admitted the appeal. During the course of the submissions, it was pointed out by learned counsel for the State that the appellant withdrew the appeal (C.A. No. 2679-2682 of 2012) on 14.05.2018. A copy of that order has been placed on record. This Court has independently considered the reasoning of the High Court and concurs with it. The reliance placed by the appellant on the classification in the Central Excise Tariff, is of little consequence since the terminology used in Chapter 59 under the relevant heading is different. Chapter 59 is far more nuanced than Entry 53 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. In these circumstances, having regard to the express terms of Item 53 which is in question in the present case, this Court is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
