9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (9) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd charged them in the bill separately, without including such charges in the price of the goods. At this stage a certificate was produced from the Executive Officer of the Corporation which was to the effect that the contract with the assessee was for the manufacture of bricks in the lands belonging to the Corporation and that the payment of Rs. 39 per 1,000 bricks was made up of the cost of bricks being Rs. 24 per 1,000 at the site of the kiln and the charge of transport being Rs. 15 for transporting the goods over a distance of 19 miles from the site of kiln to the site of the works in the Neyveli Township. This certificate was held by the appellate authority not to assist the assessee's contention and the appeal failed. At the further stage before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee claimed exemption of the entire turnover on the ground that there was no sale of goods involved, that only a contract for the manufacture and supply of bricks was entered into between himself and the Neyveli Lignite Corporation. It was established that for the previous assessment year 1958-59 a similar claim had been examined and dealt with by the Appellate Tribunal in favour of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers. Certain further limitations with regard to excavations were imposed. The contractor had to put up kilns only at the places approved and if required the Corporation undertook to manufacture in its own workshop a moving chimney, the cost of which was to be borne by the contractor. The Corporation also undertook to supply the coal necessary for burning the bricks at a cost to be recovered from the contractor's bills. The contractor had to give an undertaking to use the coal only for the purpose of burning bricks required for supply to the Corporation. At the end of the three year period, during which a supply of one crore of bricks had to be made, the contractor had to clear the survey numbers of any structures put up by him and also level the ground as required by the Corporation. An important condition of the contract was that the rejected bricks and brick-bats were not to be sold to outsiders, but shall be dumped in excavated pits and ground levelled up, as and when the required clay in the particular area had been removed to permissible limits. There are other conditions of the contract which deal with the manner in which the contract shall be carried out, particularly with r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this kind. The question is whether this view of the Tribunal can be sustained. In the decision of the Supreme Court the facts are very briefly stated. There the bricks were made out of the earth belonging to the company which called for the supply and it was argued before the Supreme Court that the bricks were therefore always the property of the company and that there could be no transfer of property in them from the supplier to the company. There was a clause in that contract which was to the effect that land will be given free, which their Lordships took to mean that it was intended to make earth available to the appellant for making bricks. From this clause alone, their Lordships refused to infer that the earth all along continued to belong to the company. When the expression used was "the land will be given free", it meant in their opinion that the property in the earth to be dug out for making the bricks would be transferred to the supplier. Again what was supplied was not the earth but the bricks which were something different. There was another express term in that contract which provided that the bricks would remain at the appellant's risk till delivery to the company. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is admitted that the supply in these cases was not made in pursuance of the contract which was dealt with in T.C. No. 206 of 1964. We have thus no means of knowing what the terms of the relevant contracts were. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in these cases that the contract in these cases was on the same lines as the contract referred to. The plea of the petitioner Seshagiri Rao (Krishnaswami Rao, his father being dead) that he is unable to lay his hands on the contract cannot be accepted. In these cases also a certificate proceeding from an official of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation was produced merely to show that the contract No. 321/59-60 in the case was for manufacture of chamber burnt bricks in private lands at Poonthottam village and supply them at site......... We notice that the contract number is different. It is also seen from this very certificate that it was the contractor's look-out to find for himself the required earth in private lands and to manufacture the bricks. He was called upon only to supply bricks at the site of work in the Neyveli Township and the understanding was that he was to be paid at a particular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
