1996 (9) TMI 570 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether high alumina refractory binder is a type of cement and subject to export tax.
2. Whether waterproofing compound sold under the brand name Accoproof is a type of cement and subject to export tax.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: High Alumina Refractory Binder as Cement
The petitioner argued that the high alumina refractory binder they manufacture is not a type of cement and should not be subject to export tax. The petitioner detailed the differences in raw materials, manufacturing processes, and applications between cement and refractory materials. They emphasized that refractory materials are used in high-temperature environments and have different chemical compositions and properties compared to cement.

The respondent, the municipal corporation, contended that the high alumina refractory binder is essentially high alumina cement, used as a binding agent, and thus falls under the category of "all types of cement" as per the resolution. They argued that despite the different applications, the basic feature of both products remains the same.

The court referred to various definitions and technical descriptions of cement, including those from dictionaries, technical books, and encyclopedias. It noted that high alumina cement is specifically mentioned as a type of cement used in refractory concretes for furnaces. The court concluded that the high alumina refractory binder produced by the petitioner is indeed a type of cement, as it serves the same basic function as a binding agent and has similar properties.

The court also noted that the petitioner pays Central excise duty on the product under the head "salt, sulphur, clay and stone, plastering materials; lime and cement," which supports the classification of the product as a type of cement.

Issue 2: Waterproofing Compound (Accoproof) as Cement
The petitioner argued that the waterproofing compound sold under the brand name Accoproof is not a type of cement. They stated that the product is used to fill pores in concrete or cement mortar to prevent water passage and is manufactured from different raw materials than cement. The petitioner also pointed out that the product is classified under organic chemicals for excise duty purposes.

The respondent countered that the product is advertised by the petitioner as a cement waterproofing compound, which implies it is a type of cement. They argued that the product's function as an adhesive substance in building construction qualifies it as a type of cement under the resolution.

The court reviewed the definitions of cement and noted that cement is broadly defined as an adhesive substance used for binding materials in construction. Given the petitioner's own description of Accoproof as a waterproofing compound for cement, the court concluded that it falls within the expression "all types of cement."

Conclusion:
The court dismissed both writ petitions, holding that both the high alumina refractory binder and the waterproofing compound Accoproof are types of cement and are thus subject to export tax as per the resolution. The court emphasized that the classification of these products under different heads for excise duty purposes does not alter their classification for the purpose of export tax under the municipal resolution.