Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2016 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 168 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxTaxability - sale of damping cloth - classification of goods - “Damping cloth” is used in offset machine as a vital component/accessory of the machine or were used in offset printing machine - classifiable under Entry No.49, in Part-DD of the First Schedule up to 26.3.2002 and thereafter, under Entry 21(ix) in Part-D of the first schedule with effect from 27.3.2002 at the rate of 12% for both the periods or as knitted pile fabrics, falling under heading 60-01 of Chapter 60 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the goods prescribed under heading 60-01 and 60-02 of the Central Excise Tariff Act has been exempted under the TNGST Act in Entry No.10 of Part A of third schedule to the TNGST Act, 1959? - whether damping cloth is textile falling within Item 4 of Third Schedule of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act - Held that: - Held that: - reliance placed on the decision of the case of Silver Chem Industries vs. the State of Tamil Nadu [1979 (11) TMI 246 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where the assessee claimed exemption in relation to a turnover relating to sales of damping hose cloth, on the ground that it is textiles. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim and the Board of Revenue examined the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on suo motu revision. The Board held that it was a finished product and it was not called as textile in ordinary or popular sense and was not commonly understood as textile, as a result of which the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner stood modified and the turnover was taken to be assessable. The Hon'ble Division Bench has held that dumping hose cloth was in no way different from the cloth used for banians and it was only tubular in shape and therefore, held that the Assistant Commissioner rightly exempted the assessee's claim and the Board's order to the contrary cannot be sustained as correct. The decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench clearly applies to the facts and circumstances of the case and the clarification issued by the second respondent that the product was classifiable under Entry No.49 is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and therefore, calls for interference - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
|