TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment years 1974-1975, 1975-1976 and 1976-1977. The applicant was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of edible oil. It is claimed that the edible oil was sold in tin containers. Tin containers were purchased within the State of U.P. In the bill, value of the oil and value of the tin containers had been separately shown and the tax liability had been admitted only on the turnover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the issue involved in the present revision is squarely covered by the decision of this court in the case of the assessee itself: Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Prag Ice and Oil Mills, Aligarh reported in [2008] 15 VST 155 (All)[App]; [2006] 4 VLJ 7 and the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Maluk Chand Cotton and Oil Mill, Aligarh reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat if there is separate contract implied or express for the containers/packing material they are liable to tax at the rate applicable to it. Similar view has been taken by this court in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Raghubar (India) Ltd., Rasalganj, Aligarh reported in [2005] UPTC 758 following the aforesaid decision of the apex court in the case of Jamana Flour Oil Mills (P) Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Tribunal in respect of the above issue is affirmed. Since the tin containers were purchased within the State of U.P. and were liable to tax at the point of manufacture or import and the applicant being neither manufacturer nor importer, turnover of tin containers is not liable to tax. In the result, all the revisions are allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside. - - TaxTMI - TMIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
