TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in to the automobile industry, are in its raw, unfinished and primary form which require further processes such as milling, drilling, tapping etc. by the purchaser before they are used in the manufacture of their motor vehicles / chassis. This being the case, we find that the ratio of the Supreme Court in the case of Vasantham Foundry would apply with full force and accordingly, the raw aluminum castings manufactured by the Respondent herein would fall within Entry C-I-29 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and not within the residual Entry C-II-102. We are unable to agree with the argument of Mr Sonpal that merely because the word ‘castings’ is not found in Entry C-I- 29, the raw aluminum castings manufactured by the Respondent cannot fall within the aforesaid Entry - In any event, we do not think that the findings rendered by the MSTT on this aspect can by any stretch of the imagination be termed as perverse or suffering from any patent illegality giving rise to any substantial question of law that would persuade us to take a different view. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Sales Tax Reference No. 58 of 2012, Reference Application No. 54 of 1997 - - - Dated:- 30-10-2015 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This was done on the basis of a judgment of the MSTT in the case of M/s Ceepla Industries v/s The State of Maharashtra (Second Appeal No. 3 of 1991 dated 20th December, 1991). However, subsequently the Respondent learnt about the another judgment of the MSTT in the case of M/s B. S. J. Foundries and Works v/s the State of Maharashtra (S. A. No.1242 of 1991 dated 31st October, 1994), wherein the MSTT took a different view in respect of nonferrous raw castings. In this decision, the MSTT had diverted from the earlier view and non-ferrous castings were held to be covered by the residual Entry C-II-102. 4. In this view of the matter, the Respondent on or about 28th December, 1994 filed an application under Section 52 of the BST Act before the Commissioner of Sales Tax and sought determination regarding the rate of sales tax applicable on the sale of raw aluminum castings. The Commissioner, by his order dated 13th January, 1996 (under Section 52(2) of the BST Act) came to the conclusion that the sale of raw aluminum castings for cylinder head covers sold vide invoice No.1682 dated 13th December, 1994 by the Respondent to TELCO Ltd. were covered by Schedule Entry C-II-102 and liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 102, and the MSTT was in error in overturning the order of determination passed by the Commissioner dated 13th January, 1996. In support of the aforesaid submission, Mr Sonpal placed heavy reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bengal Oil Corporation and another v/s Commercial Tax Officer and others. 1994 Supp (1) SCC 310 He submitted that the present case was squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Bengal Oil Corporation's case. 1994 Supp (1) SCC 310. 8. It was the submission of Mr. Sonpal that on the other hand, the MSTT placed reliance on another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vasantham Foundry v/s Union of India and others (1995) 5 SCC 289 and on the basis thereof, overturned the order of the Commissioner and held that the items sold by the Respondent herein vide their Invoice No.1682 dated 13th December, 1994 fell in Entry C-I-29 exigible to tax at 4% and not in the residual Entry C-II-102 exigible to tax at 10%. He submitted that the reliance placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vasantham Foundry's case (1995) 5 SCC 289 was wholly misplaced as the facts in that case were totally different from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er material. Explanation : For the purpose of subentry (ii) (i) the term 'tubes' does not include tubular containers intended for packing or storing of any goods, and (ii) the term 'angles' does not include slotted or perforated angles. 4% 4% 4% 4% 1-4-1994 to 30-9-1995 1-4-1994 to 30-9-1995 Similarly, Entry C-II-102 reads as under:- Sr. No. Description of Goods Rate of Sales Ta Rate of Purchase Tax Period of Operation 1 2 3 4 5 102 All goods other than those covered from time to time by the other schedules and the preceding entries of this schedule. 10% 10% 1-4-1994 to 30-9-1995 11. It is not in dispute before us that aluminum is a nonferrous metal. The facts before us and which have been elaborately set out in the order of the MSTT dated 13th Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on within the meaning of Item (2) (i) of Schedule III to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and therefore liable to tax only at 4%. The Assessing Officer rejected this claim of the Appellant and held that cast iron castings manufactured by the Appellant were not declared goods falling within the relevant entries of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and correspondingly not liable to tax only at the rate of 4%. When this matter was carried all the way to the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court, after relying upon another judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Deccan Engineers v/s State of Andhra Pradesh [1992 Vol.84 S.T.C. 92 (AP)] came to the conclusion that the words cast iron were different from cast iron castings manufactured by the Appellant. The Supreme Court came to a categorical finding that the products manufactured by the Appellant, in common commercial parlance, were different and distinct from the cast iron from which they were manufactured. The relevant portion of the aforesaid decision is set out at paragraph 6 (of SCC Report) and reads as under:- 6. It is thus clear that cast iron is different from ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant manufactured these rough cast iron castings according to the specifications of their customers, who in turn, after putting them through various other processes like machining, grinding, polishing etc., manufactured final products like manhole covers, pipes, components, agricultural implements etc. It was the argument of the Appellant that the proposition laid down Bengal Iron Corporation's case1 was that if agricultural implements or of parts of motor vehicles or manhole covers, bends or cast iron pipes etc were being produced, they could not be treated as cast iron but would have to be treated as finished goods made of cast iron . In other words, it was argued in Vasantham Foundry's case (1995) 5 SCC 289 that if in a given case, it is found that the products / goods manufactured from cast iron are finished goods, it is only in those circumstances that the ratio of Bengal Iron Corporation's case 1994 Supp (1) SCC 310 would apply. If cast iron castings in its raw form and at its preliminary stage are manufactured, they would fall within the words cast iron exigible to tax at 4%. In this light, it was argued by the Appellant that the judgment of the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wspapers, actionable claims, stocks, shares and securities; 17. By including cast iron among the goods of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce, the legislature could not have given the phrase cast iron a narrow and limited meaning so as to exclude everything made out of cast iron in molten form. Only some of the goods which are dealt with in inter-State trade or commerce, have been declared as goods of special importance. On these goods tax can be levied only at one point and the rate of tax will not exceed 4% of its price. It is not conceivable that molten metal can be sold or purchased in course of inter-State trade or for that matter even in course of intra- State sale or purchase. Assuming for argument's sake that a quantity of molten metal can be purchased by a customer, it can only be delivered by a foundry in a container. The molten metal will solidify on cooling and acquire the shape and size of the container. In other words, the molten metal will become rough cast iron casting. Similarly, if the molten metal is delivered in moulds, it will acquire the size and shape of the moulds as soon as it cools down. It is nobody's case that it is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 17th October, 1994 from M/s Premier Automobiles Ltd. reads thus:- This is to certify that the various types of raw castings manufactured and supplied by M/s Jaya Hind Industries Ltd., Pune to us are being further processed at our end for carrying out various operations viz. drilling, milling, tapping etc. and thereafter used in the manufacture of our make cars. (emphasis supplied) 18. From these Certificates it will be amply clear that what is manufactured by the Respondent herein is very much in the raw, unfinished and primary form and are not finished goods. These findings of fact have been arrived at by the MSTT after taking into consideration all the material placed before it and we do not think that these findings are in any way perverse and/or contrary to the record. Further it is not even the case of the Applicant Revenue that these Certificates are unreliable and therefore the MSTT was in error in placing reliance thereon. To be fair to Mr. Sonpal, he did not even urge such an argument. 19. In view of this factual position, we find that the reliance placed by Mr Joshi on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vasantham Foundry's case (1995) 5 SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
