Heard Counsel for the Revisionist and Sri Sanjeev Sankhdhar, Standing Counsel.
Revisionist-M/s Mega Extrusion is engaged in the manufacture of Aluminum Collapsible Tubes. by the process of extrusion and thereafter sale the same in the market. According to the Revisionist the said product is covered under the Notification dated 17.2.2000 and is taxable @ 4%. For the assessment year 2000-2001, the Assessing Authority accepted the books of the revisionist and also assessed the said product so manufactured by the revisionist at the rate of 4%. However, for the assessment year 2001-2002, the Assessing Authority without any cogent reason categorised the said product as an unclassified commodity and accordingly taxed it at the rate of 10%. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the Firm filed First Appeal but the same was rejected. The Second Appeal preferred by the Firm also met with the same fate and as such the instant revision has been filed.
Counsel for the Revisionist has argued that the authorities erred in not considering the vital fact that the Firm is manufacturer of Aluminum Collapsible Tube which is extruded Aluminum product (slug) and the said product is covered under notification dated 17.2.2000. He has also argued that the authorities also failed to take into consideration the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal passed in the case of Chandra Extrusion vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax in Second Appeal No. 18/1990 whereby the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that the Aluminum tubes which are manufactured by the process of extrusion and as such it falls in the classified category.I am in full agreement with the view expressed by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in the aforesaid case.
It is also relevant to mention that in earlier assessment years, no such objection was raised and the assessment of the aforesaid product was made at the rate of 4 percent. In my considered opinion, the Tribunal erred in not considering the vital fact that tubes are the product of extrusion process. The Tribunal further fell into error in not appreciating the fact that the Firm has explained that Ink and Caps are meant for giving the facility to the customer and no extra amount is received in this regard from the customers.Thus, it is incorrect to say that the product is an unclassified item.
Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 7.1.2010 passed by the Tribunal is hereby set-aside. It is held that the correct rates of sales on the aforesaid item is 4% being the classified item in view of the notification dated 17.2.2000.
The Revision stands allowed in above terms.
Order Date :- 2.11.2011 MH/-