9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l decide the said appeal(s) within a period of six months, uninfluenced by the observations made by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court in the impugned judgment. We express no opinion on the merits of the case. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o since the goods after import became part of the landmass of India. The appellant also alleged that identical goods manufactured by multinational corporations like LG, Samsung, etc., were also subjected to levy of 12 per cent only, since the said multinationals (who were competitors of the appellant) produced those goods in India. The Tribunal dismissed the original petitions against which writ petitions were filed by the appellant which were also dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment, hence these civil appeals. As repeatedly observed by this court, in tax matters, each word in the entry requires a factual foundation to be established. In the present case, therefore, we need to look at the subject entries. We quote hereinb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pleted, then the goods lose their character of imported goods and, consequently, there would be no difference between the locally manufactured goods and imported goods (see page 54 of the SLP paper book). One more contention raised by the assessee in its original petition before the Tribunal was: "It is submitted that similar goods manufactured in India and sold by other dealers like Samsung, LG, etc., in Tamil Nadu are being taxed at 12 per cent after March 27, 2002. However, the petitioners (assessee) herein alone are now required to pay tax at 20 per cent. Presently, the Act imposes a higher rate of 20 per cent on sales whereas other similar goods suffer sales tax at 12 per cent." We do not wish to comment about the above contentions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
