TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rubberised coir, the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. First of all, samples have been perused and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has recorded a categorical finding that the product is only made of rubberised coir, taxable at 5%, which fact has been concurred by the Tribunal - No demand - decided against the revenue. - T.C. No. 11 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 1-6-2016 - S. Manikumar And D. Krishna Kumar, JJ. For the Petitioner : Dr. Anitha Sumath ORDER ( Order of the Court was made by S. Manikumar, J. ) Challenge in this appeal is to the order made in S.T.A.No.1061 of 2000, dated 18.07.2002, passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. 2. Facts leading to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrels, Cannes, Gunnies and Forms : Rs. 7,335 at 8% Total taxable turnover : ₹ 1,48,55,975/- Invoking Section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of ₹ 8,543/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent went on appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Thanjavur and after hearing the parties, by order, dated 05.11.1999, he has modified, as hereunder: The rubberised coir product is liable to tax at the rate of 5% only as per Item No.24 of Part C of first schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax, 1959, as per the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commerc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly assessed at 12% by the assessing officer and therefore, finally pleaded for restoration of the order of the assessing officer in its entirety. 5. Adverting to the rival submissions, after going through the rival submissions, the Tribunal, while dismissing S.T.A.No.1061 of 2000, vide order, dated 18.07.2002, at Paragraphs 7 and 8, held as follows: During argument, the learned Advocate for the respondent has filed a typed set of papers. In that, the Schedule entry part-C Item 24 and 38 were given. The clarification issued by the Commissioner and assessment order copies for 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 were also filed. The learned Advocate has also filed a copy of the Madras High Court's decision reported in 108 STC 484 and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we quite agree with the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner's findings. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has given a clarification for rubberised coir products are assessable under Item 24 only. It is only a consideration, whether it is a rubberised product or it is bare rubber. By going through the literature and the raw materials used in the manufacture, we find that the product manufactured by the dealer is only rubber coir mattress. The decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court relied on is squarely applicable to the present case. The Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that there is no distinction between the products that they were made by covering a block of rubberised coir with other materials. By respectively f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d against Form XVII and used. Therefore, the raw materials used are entirely different from the one used in the case law reported. Further, the GOP.303, dated 16.03.1981 will apply to cases made of rubber, bonding gum latex and coir only. No foam was added and hence, the GOP is will not apply to the case. Moreover, the GOP which was relied on in the decision reported in 108 STC 484 was deleted with effect from 25.03.1989. (v) The Tribunal failed to note that the Commissioner's Clarification issued in 1999 is different from the one manufactured by the dealer. Further, during the year 1995-96, fibre foam products were classified under Entry 15 of Part-E of the First Schedule taxable at 12% and therefore, the Assessing Authority had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 16.03.1981, applicable to rubberised coir, the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. 9. First of all, samples have been perused and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has recorded a categorical finding that the product is only made of rubberised coir, taxable at 5%, which fact has been concurred by the Tribunal. Dispute is with reference to the assessment year 1995-96. No strong material grounds have been made out and therefore, this Court is not inclined to reverse the concurrence finding of fact recorded. Question of law raised is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 10. In the result, the Tax Case Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
