Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Petitioner is the manufacturer of gitti based plates. It is not disputed that these gitti based plates have been sold to the manufacturer of speakers.
According to the petitioner the gitti based plates can be put to only one use i.e. in the manufacturer of speaker.
The issue for consideration before this Court is as to whether such gitti based plates can themselves be said to be electronic goods merely because it is an essential component in the manufacture of a speaker which is classified as an electronic good.
On behalf of the petitioner reference has been made to the four judgments for the proposition that every component/every part which goes in the manufacturer of an electronic good is in itself to be treated as electronic good. (Ref. State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Ferro Ceramics (P) Ltd. reported in (1999) 115 STC, 336, Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. vs. Punjab Gramophone House, Aminabad Park, Lucknow reported in 1978 UPTC, 664, Surgichem vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1992) 87 STC, 40 and Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. vs. Sarbodha Manufacturing Company reported in 1970 UPTC, 130).
According to the assessee the gitti based plate cannot be treated to be a unclassified item inasmuch as it is integral part of the speaker which is an electronic good.
In the opinion of the Court the contention raised on behalf of the revisionist is wholly misconceived.
Petitioner is not a manufacturer of electronic good. He manufactures a component of an electronic good and ultimately sells the same to the manufacturer of speaker which is an electronic good. Every component of an electronic good in itself may not necessarily be an electronic good. However, when such component is used and becomes an integral part of the electronic good then such component may not be separated from the electronic good for being taxed differently. The judgments which have been relied upon by the petitioner only lay down that an essential part of an electronic good cannot be separated and treated differently for the purposes of tax. The electronic good as a whole including its various component is to be treated as covered by the item.
There can be no quarrel with the legal proposition so laid down. However, in the facts of the case the judgments have no application and are distinguishable. Revisionist is not a manufacturer of electronic good. He is only a manufacturer of component which in itself is not an good. He sells the same to manufacturer of a speaker i.e. an electronic good. The department has rightly held that the goods in question can not classified under any entry, therefore, to be treated as unclassified.
Revision is dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
Dated :22.11.2011 VR/TTR 1005/04