9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e aforesaid commodity falls under the category "hair oil" and is consequently taxable under the entry (all kinds of cosmetics) at the rate of 12 per cent with effect from September 7, 1981 vide Notification No. ST-II-5784/x-(1)/80 U.P. Act 15/ 48-Order-81 dated September 7, 1981? (ii) Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold that the product in question manufactured and sold by the assessee is cattle feed and balance poultry feed which is exempt from payment of sales tax despite the fact that cattle feed is taxable as an unclassified commodity? (iii) Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold that the assessee was not liable for tax on sale of blue detergent cakes as it was sold after purchasing from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onut oil" is liable to tax under the entry of "oil of all kinds." Learned Standing Counsel is not able to show anything in the contrary. It is settled principle of law that the circulars are binding upon the Revenue authority as held in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Indra Industries reported in [2001] 122 STC 100 (SC); [2000] UPTC 472. The apex court held as follows (page 102 of STC): "A circular by tax authorities is not binding on the courts. It is not binding on the assessee. However, the interpretation that is thereby placed by the taxing authority on the law is binding on that taxing authority. In other words, the taxing authority cannot be heard to advance an argument that is contrary to that interpretation." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue to advance an argument or even file an appeal against the correctness of the binding nature of the circulars issued by the Board. Similar is the view taken by this court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Kores (India) Limited [1997] 10 SCC 338." Similar view has been taken by the apex court in a recent decisions in the case of SACI Allied Products Ltd., U.P. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut reported in [2005] 5 RC 119; [2005] 7 SCC 159 and Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan reported in [2003] 263 ITR 706. In view of the above, so far as question No. (i) is concerned, the order of the Tribunal is upheld and the question is answered in favour of the assessee. So far as question No. (ii) is concerned, both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detergent bars and cakes from M/s. Karona Cosmetics and Chemicals Ltd., Kanpur unit holding eligibility certificate under section 4A of the Act. The dealer entered into an agreement with Karona Cosmetics and Chemicals Ltd., Kanpur, for the purchases of blue detergent bars and cakes and under the terms of the agreement, the manufacturer was required to purchase raw materials of the specification provided by the dealer. In view of the aforesaid clause of the agreement, the assessing authority held that Karona Cosmetics and Chemicals Ltd., Kanpur had manufactured the detergent bars on behalf of the dealer and after the manufacturing it is the dealer who had made the first sale and therefore was liable to tax, being a "manufacturer" defined un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
