9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue against order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore dated November 14, 2000 passed in Tribunal Appeal No. 5 of 2000. The point involved in this revision is whether cotton yarn and sewing thread are one and the same commodity for the purpose of taxation. The Tribunal has held that they are one and the same following the decision of this court in the case of State o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thread Factory v. Commercial Tax Officer, Rattan Bazaar Assessment Circle, Chennai [2001] 124 STC 569, and the Division Bench of this court has held as follows: (page 570) "2. The decisions of this court are to be found in State of Tamil Nadu v. R.V. Krishniah Chetty and Sons [1994] 92 STC 262 (Mad) and State of Tamil Nadu v. R.V. Krishniah Chetty and Sons [1990] 78 STC 422 (Mad). Both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subject. 3.. The activity of the assessee, as accepted by the Revenue is only to purchase the cotton yarn. It does not do anything more in relation thereto thereafter, except to dye it, put it into spools and sell it under its own name as sewing thread. 4.. As held by this court in State of Tamil Nadu v. R.V. Krishniah Chetty and Sons [1994] 92 STC 262 (Mad), sewing thread does not lose its char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being declared goods. The impugned order of the Tribunal is, therefore, set aside and the writ petition is allowed."
Hence, the issue in the present case is already covered by holding that the cotton thread manufactured by the assessee is still a declared goods and not different from the cotton yarn and are one and the same commodity. Hence, the tax case is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
