9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 70 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxClassification of goods - Whether the cello used by the assessee were capital goods or merely usable containers used for sale of the ink manufactured by the assessee? - HELD THAT - Upon a plain reading of what has been written by the Tribunal, it appears that Cello is an apparatus that is fitted to the plant and machinery where the final product is stored, and once the Cello is filled up, the same is removed from the plant and machinery and it is replaced with another Cello. The fact that the Cello is directly sent to the customers for consumption would not take away from the fact that it is used as a storage device for the manufactured ink. Mere fact that the Cello is a moveable apparatus that is sent to the customers, would not take away from the fact that it is only a storage tank in the factory. This by itself makes it an essential part of the manufacturing process and would qualify it under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Act. There are no justification to intervene in the decision made by the Tribunal. As a result, both the revisions are, accordingly, dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the cello used by the assessee were capital goods or merely usable containers used for sale of the ink manufactured by the assessee? Summary: Issue 1: Definition of Capital Goods Sri Bipin Kumar Pandey, representing the revisionist, argued that the definition of "capital goods" under Section 2(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, includes plant, machinery, and apparatus used for the manufacture or processing of goods. He contended that the cello is not a fixed part of the plant and machinery but is used for supplying the already manufactured ink to customers. He emphasized that the cello is an apparatus for transporting ink and cannot be treated as part of the plant and machinery. Issue 2: Tribunal's Fact-Finding Sri Atul Gupta, representing the respondent/assessee, argued that the Tribunal found the cello to be an integral part of the manufacturing process, attached to machinery where the manufactured ink is stored. He cited precedents, including Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Lucknow v. Ambuja Cement Limited, and J.K. Cotton SPG & WVG Mills Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur, to support that apparatus integral to the manufacturing process should be treated as capital goods. Analysis and Conclusion The Court noted that the Tribunal is the last fact-finding body and that revisional jurisdiction is limited to questions of law, jurisdictional errors, or procedural irregularities. The High Court cannot reappreciate or re-examine evidence and findings of the Tribunal unless there are compelling grounds. The Court referred to Section 58 of the Act, which confines revisional jurisdiction to questions of law, and emphasized that the High Court should not engage in de novo inquiries into factual matters already adjudicated by the Tribunal. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh, which clarified that revisional jurisdiction is narrower than appellate jurisdiction and is not meant to reappraise evidence or substitute findings. Upon reviewing the Tribunal's findings, the Court concluded that the cello is an apparatus fitted to the plant and machinery where the final product is stored, and its use as a storage device qualifies it as capital goods under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Act. Final Judgment The Court found no justification to intervene in the Tribunal's decision and dismissed both revisions.
|
