TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances for the earlier two assessment years. Each assessment year is distinct and independent. However, there is a similar caveat to the said submission that if the nature of transaction is identical for more than one year, then obviously the department cannot take a different stand, unless there are distinguishing circumstances pointed out by the Assessing Officer or the Appellate Authority or the Tribunal. In the instant case, probably the Tribunal was not aware of the earlier orders passed in favor of the assessee. Thus, the two orders on the same type of transactions cannot be left to remain inconsistent with each other. Matter remanded to the Tribunal to take note of the decision in the assessee's own case in STA.Nos.273 of 2004 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alt with by the petitioner would fall under Entry 14 (iii) of Part D of the First schedule to the Act instead of Entry 13(i) Part C of the First schedule. The assessee had imported access control systems, intrusion alarm systems, conventional fire alarm, analog conversory systems, closed circuit television and electronic spares. 5.The assessee claimed that the goods dealt by them are accessories and parts of the electronic systems, the individual items were imported and sold and are not capable of forming an individual unit and there is no finding given by the assessing officer that the assessee integrated the imported goods and made an electronic system and sold the same. 6.The assessee further contended that they sold the goods as s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etely different from one another and are totally different from one another and the goods marketed by the assesee has to be held to be parts and accessories of an electronic system employed for burglar and fire alarm systems and the part and accessories by itself, cannot be usable independently but only as an accessory to the main system. 8.Therefore, the assessee contended that the product dealt by them would fall under Sl.No.13(i) of Part C of the First Schedule as electronic system. Further, the assessee distinguished the stand taken by the Assessing Officer by contending that Sl.No.14 of Part D deals predominantly with electrical systems, apparatus, appliances of all kinds other than those specified elsewhere in this schedule, exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed the appeal filed by the State. Thus, the contention raised by the assessee was accepted and the order passed by the Assessing Officer stood reversed in respect of the assessment years 2001-01 and 2001-02. 11.As already pointed, for the assessment year 2002-03, the assessee succeeded before the First Appellate Authority, who passed an order in their favour on 25.07.2005 in A.P.No.204/2004. As against the order dated 25.07.2005 made in A.P.No.204/2004, the State preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which allowed the appeal by the impugned order. 12.On a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal did not take note of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal dated 24.01.2006 in STA.Nos.273 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
