9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 7169 of 2004 and 1203 of 2008. Civil Appeal Nos. 6469-6470 of 2002 & 1203 of 2008 2. The issue which arises for consideration in these appeals is, whether the satilon brand cookware sold by the appellants is an "aluminium household utensil made of aluminum" and "aluminium alloys" classifiable under Entry 5 of the First Schedule under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short "the Act") or whether the said product would fall under Entry 104 which pertains to "pressure cooker, cook and serve ware to keep food warm, casseroles, water filters and similar home appliances not coming under any other entry". 3. The authority in original i.e. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment III), Ernakulam at the first instance accepted the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 in the year 1999 by which the word "non-stick cookware" was added was only clarificatory in nature. The case of the appellant was that prior to the said amendment of 1.4.1999 the appellant's product would clearly fall under Entry 5 and not under Entry 104. 5. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal as well as the High Court that "satelon coated aluminium products" are not identical with "aluminium household utensils made of aluminium and aluminium alloys". The coating of satilon makes all the difference to the product. The Tribunal has further recorded a finding that in trade parlance, no one would describe satilon coated aluminium products as aluminium household utensils. 6. We do not agree ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants without adverting to the facts of the said cases. 9. For the reasons stated above, the appeals are dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 7169 of 2004 10. In this case the product is slightly different in the sense that the articles are coated with tuflon instead of satilon. Coating of tuflon also makes the article non-stick. Before the High Court the learned counsel, who had appeared for the assessee, conceded that the point in issue was squarely covered by the earlier decision of the High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 1405 of 2004 dated 4.8.2004, which has been upheld by us today (Civil Appeal No. 6469-70 of 2002). No other point was urged. 11. Since we have upheld the order passed by the High Court in the connected C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
