1986 (6) TMI 241

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... evenue is the revision-petitioner in both these tax revision cases. The same assessee is the respondent in both the cases. The respondent-assessee is manufacturing machineries. They are vertical and horizontal handsaws and wood lathes. For the assessment years, 1980-81 and 1981-82, the sales turnover relating to the said goods was assessed at 8 per cent as falling under entry 141 of the First Sche .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ty. The Tribunal upheld the said objection. The Revenue has filed the above two tax revision cases assailing the common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for both the years, T.A. Nos. 446 and 447 of 1983, dated December 20, 1985. We heard counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Karunakaran Nambiar. Counsel submitted that the word "machinery" used in entry 141 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... see in the instant case are not admittedly transport equipments. We are of the view that they will not fall under entry 141 of the First Schedule. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding so. There is no error either in the reasoning or in the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal. These two tax revision cases are without merit. We dismiss the revisions in limine. Petition dismissed.
C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X