TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 831X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PRAKASH KRISHNA , J. PRAKASH KRISHNA J. These two revisions have been filed under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 by the Department against the common order of the Tribunal dated July 22, 2005 whereby and whereunder, the Tribunal has held that looking glass is taxable as unclassified item under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The revisions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment as jointly agreed by the learned counsel for the parties. The dispute relates to the assessment years 1999-2000 and 1994-95. The facts are not much in dispute. The opposite party hereinafter referred to as the dealer imported looking glass/mirror glass from outside of U.P and sold them. The assessing officer on the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 497; [1975] UPTC 343. Shri Piyush Agrawal, Advocate, on the other hand submits that the controversy raised before the authorities below was as to whether looking glass is glassware or not. If it is not a glassware, it is liable to be taxed as unclassified item and at this stage it is not open to the Department to raise a new plea and contend that looking glass is taxable as toilet requisites. Reliance was placed by him on Commissioner of Sales Tax v. India Pipe Store [1973] UPTC 606 and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Radhey Lal Ved Prakash [1992] UPTC 215. Considered the respective submissions of the counsel for the parties. Before proceeding to decide the dispute on merits, it is desirable to consider the objection raised by the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t rely on a different notification. This is not so in the present case. Similar was the position in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Radhey Lal Ved Prakash [1992] UPTC 215. As discussed above, the argument of the learned counsel for the dealer-opposite party that it is not open for the Department to contend in the present revision that the glass mirror is taxable as toilet requisite is not sustainable. In Atul Glass Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1986] 63 STC 322; [1986] UPTC 1345, the apex court was considering the entry relating to glass and glasswares under the Excise Act. The question was whether glass mirror should be classified as glassware. It noted the manufacturing process of glass mirror in the following words ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid of an infra-red heating system. After thorough drying, the silver and copper coatings are protected with four coats of special mirror-backing paint applied with the aid of a roller-coating machine in four stages. The paint is baked in the baking conveyor after thorough drying. The other side of the mirror is mechanically cleaned. The mirror thus produced is finally sent for quality control inspection. Cut glass is employed in the case of decorative mirrors. The cut glass is shaped with the aid of cutting lathe-machines before subjecting it to the silver process. Edge grinding or bevelling and hole-drilling is done, if required, after the mirror has been manufactured. It reached to the conclusion that the original glass sheet underg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the above authoritative pronouncement, glass mirror is taxable as toilet requisite. The learned counsel for the dealer could not show anything to the contrary. It may be added here that toilet requisites are also taxable at 15 per cent, the rate which was levied by the assessing officer on the turnover of imported glass mirror. In this manner, no prejudice is being caused to the dealer-opposite party. Viewed as above, it is held that the authorities below were not justified in taxing the glass-mirror as unclassified item. It is also held that glass mirror is taxable as toilet requisite. The order of the Tribunal is therefore, set aside. Both the revisions succeed and are allowed but no order as to costs. - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
