9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lt?" 2. In so far as the first question of law in respect of the item wheat bran is concerned, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to record a finding as to whether wheat bran sold by the assessee was a wheat bran used for cattle feed. Subsequent to the said order of remand passed by the Tribunal, it is seen that the Assessing Authority passed an assessment order on 30.11.2009 thereby granting exemption to the said item wheat bran. Hence, the assessee has no grievance in so far as the issue with regard to wheat bran is concerned. Accordingly, there is no necessity for us to answer the first question of law raised in both these revisions. 3. In so far as the second question of law with regard to the other item viz., common salt is concerned, the case of the assessee is that they purchased common salt to be used in the manufacture of biscuits and other items by them. The claim of the assessee is that the common salt purchased by them and used in the manufacture of biscuits and other items, is an exempted item under Entry 7 of Part B of the Third Schedule of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and therefore, they are not liable to pay tax in respect of su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Before going into the merits of the matter, we are placed with a fact that in the case of the very same assessee, the very same Tribunal in respect of the very same issue with regard to the common salt purchased and used, had given a finding in respect of earlier assessment years viz., 1997-98 and 1998-99 in STA.NOs. 503 and 502 of 2002 dated 25.7.2006 by holding that the common salt used by the assessee is nothing but a salt consumable only for human use and therefore, Entry 7 of Part B of the III Schedule alone will squarely be applicable. The Tribunal had also found in the said decision that who is using the salt is immaterial and the test is to see for what purpose it has been used. Consequently, the Tribunal has accepted the plea put forth by the assessee seeking for exemption under Entry 7 of Part B of the Third Schedule and dismissed the State appeals preferred in those cases. 7. The admitted position is that the Revenue has accepted the said decision of the Tribunal made in STA.NOs. 503 and 502 of 2002 dated 25.7.2006, since no further appeal has been preferred against the said order. Admittedly, the commodity in question viz., "the common salt", purchased and used by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturer of "tarpaulin" and classified the same under sub-heading 6306.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Such claim of the appellant therein was rejected by the Revenue and thereby classified the said item under sub Heading 3926.90. The appellant therein challenged the same before the Tribunal. The appellant's case was rejected by the Tribunal by holding that the classification of "tarpaulin" was already concluded by its earlier decision reported in (2003) 153 ELT 336 GUJARAT RAFFIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. CCE, by classifying it under Sub Heading 3926.90. Aggrieved against such order the appellant approached the Apex Court. While considering the entitlement of the appellant therein to challenge the classification, especially when they were parties to earlier proceedings, the Apex Court at para 9 held as follows :- "On going through the decision in Gujarat Raffia Industries Limited, we find that the appellant had filed an intervention application in pursuance of the directions issued by the High Court of Gujarat. The contentions raised by the appellant were rejected and the "tarpaulin" manufactured by the appellant was held to be classifiable under Sub heading 3926.90. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial use' and not the 'common salt'. Therefore, the intention is very clear in making the distinction between the common salt as contemplated under Entry 7 of Part B of the Third Schedule and the salt used for industrial purpose as contemplated under Entry 62 of Part B of the First Schedule. It is not the case of the Revenue that the purchase made by the assessee is not a common salt. Their only contention is that though the assessee purchased common salt, they have used it for industrial purpose, which would fall under Entry 62 of Part B of the First Schedule and therefore they cannot seek exemption as per Entry 7 of Part B of the Third Schedule. 12. We are unable to agree with the contention raised by the Revenue and conclusions arrived at by the authorities below for the reasons stated herein. The Tribunal rejected the claim of the assessee only by assuming that the assessee has used the common salt for industrial purpose and therefore, the said salt matches with the Entry 62 of Part B of the First Schedule. The Tribunal has not noted the distinction between the "salt" referable to Entry 62 of Part B of the First Schedule and "common salt" referable to Entry 7 of Par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
