2018 (9) TMI 978 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Classification of goods - Hybrid Amplifier or Line Extender - Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in holding the impugned product i.e. Hybrid Amplifier or Line Extender as not an accessory of Cable T.V. covered by the said schedule entry C-II-124 but a general electronic item covered by the schedule entry C-II-126? Held that - Though Hybrid Amplifiers may be used for Cable TV transmission to the extent that it boosts the signal that has to be transmitted, it has very many other uses. According to the experts opinion (and which was placed before the MSTT by the Assessee), it can be seen that the impugned product is capable of amplifying signals over a range of 48 MHz to 550 MHz. The maximum output is 120 dBU. For all these reasons, according to the experts opinion, the impugned product (viz. Hybrid Amplifiers) could be used for a variety of applications including in the aeronautical field, navigation etc. to name a few - the experts opinion clearly shows that the impugned product can be used for mobile radio, VHF TV channels, Radio Service, FM Radio, in the aeronautical field, amateur Radio, Radio Navigation as well as UHF TV channels. The Hybrid Amplifier basically boosts the signal, be it for the purpose of transmission of Cable TV or for several other purposes as set out by us earlier. This being the position, we agree with the finding of the MSTT that the impugned product viz. Hybrid Amplifier has got a totally different function and it has no function akin to an antenna - This Hybrid Amplifier cannot be classified under Schedule Entry CII-124 as it is neither a TV set, TV Camera, TV Receiver, TV Monitor, antennas and components, parts and accessories of any of them. Merely because the impugned product can also be used for the purpose of boosting Cable TV signals would not alone justify its classification under Schedule Entry C-II-124. The Hybrid Amplifier sold by the Assessee would fall within the Schedule Entry C-II-126 - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the product "Hybrid Amplifier" under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Interpretation of Schedule Entries C-II-124 and C-II-126.
3. Determination of the applicable tax rate for the product.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of the Product "Hybrid Amplifier"
The primary issue revolves around whether the "Hybrid Amplifier" or "Line Extender" should be classified under Schedule Entry C-II-124 or C-II-126 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Assessee, engaged in the manufacture and sale of Hybrid Amplifiers, filed an application for determination of the disputed question (DDQ Application) before the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Assessee described the Hybrid Amplifier as a device used in the distribution of Cable TV signals, but also capable of other applications such as drivers, pre-amplifiers for induction furnaces, cautery units, and ultrasonic applications.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Schedule Entries C-II-124 and C-II-126
Schedule Entry C-II-124 includes TV Sets, TV Cameras, TV Receivers, TV Monitors, Antennas, and components, parts, and accessories of any of them, taxed at 13%. Schedule Entry C-II-126 pertains to electronic systems, instruments, apparatus, and appliances other than those covered elsewhere, and their components, parts, and accessories, also taxed at 13%, but with a reduced rate of 4% during specific periods.

The Assessee argued that the Hybrid Amplifier should fall under the residual entry C-II-126, claiming it as an electronic item not specifically covered by other entries, and thus eligible for a reduced tax rate. In contrast, the Commissioner held that the Hybrid Amplifier was an accessory of Cable TV, falling under Schedule Entry C-II-124, and thus subject to a higher tax rate of 13%.

Issue 3: Determination of the Applicable Tax Rate
The MSTT, after considering the Assessee's contentions and expert opinions, concluded that the Hybrid Amplifier had multiple applications beyond Cable TV transmission. The MSTT found that the product amplified signals over a broad frequency range and could be used in various fields like aeronautics and navigation. The expert opinion highlighted the differences between an Antenna and a Hybrid Amplifier, emphasizing that the latter is an active device requiring power and capable of signal processing, unlike a passive Antenna.

The MSTT's decision was challenged by the Commissioner, leading to the present reference to the High Court. The Revenue argued that the specific entry (C-II-124) should override the general entry (C-II-126), citing the Supreme Court's decision in State of Maharashtra v/s M/s Bradma of India Ltd.

Judgment:
The High Court, after reviewing the facts and expert opinions, agreed with the MSTT's findings that the Hybrid Amplifier is a standalone electronic device with multiple applications, not limited to Cable TV. The Court held that the product did not fit within the specific entry C-II-124, as it was not an accessory to TV sets or antennas. Instead, it fell under the residual entry C-II-126, which covers electronic systems, instruments, and appliances.

The Court emphasized that the specific entry should override the general entry only when the product clearly fits within the specific entry, which was not the case here. Consequently, the Court answered the question of law in favor of the Assessee, holding that the Hybrid Amplifier should be classified under Schedule Entry C-II-126 and eligible for the reduced tax rate.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Hybrid Amplifier sold by the Assessee falls within Schedule Entry C-II-126. The question of law was answered in the affirmative, favoring the Assessee and against the Revenue. The Sales Tax Reference was thus resolved with no order as to costs.