1969 (4) TMI 93

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing to assess them as "general goods" under section 5(1) of the Act. The Tribunal has relied on the decision in Mahabir Singh Ram Babu v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer[1962] 13 S.T.C. 248. of the Allahabad High Court where Brijlal Gupta, J., held that cinder is not coal. Mr. Sundara Rao by reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co.[1967] 19 S.T.C. 1; A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1066., wherein cinders have been held as by-products of coal, contends that it is "coal" within the meaning of item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act. He further referred to another decision of the Supreme Court in Sales Tax Commissioner, Indore v. Jaswant Singh[1967] 19 S.T.C. 469; A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1454. that the expression "coal" in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing to the dictionary meaning of the word "cinder" and certain observations of authors of scientific books to ascertain how coke is formed, he was of the view that cinders are different from coal or coke. The learned judge observed at page 318 that in view of the words and the definition that coal includes coke in all its forms, cinder which is the product of coke is not coke or a form of coke. Both the Allahabad and the Madras High Courts took the view that "cinder" is neither coke nor a form of coke. In Fletcher v. Fields[1891] 1 Q.B. 790., which was referred to by Veeraswami, J., it was argued that for purposes of sections 35 and 36 of the London Coal Dues Abolition Act, 1889, if "cinders" are not "coal", neither is "coke". It seems to h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... furnaces" of the appellant-company, but it is still capable of being used in "lighter furnaces" and said "kolsi" results from coal which remains unburnt: it is, on that account, a subsidiary product. When such subsidiary product is turned out in the factory regularly and continuously and is being sold from time to time, an intention to carry on business in "kolsi" may be reasonably attributed to the company. The principle of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Aryodaya Spinning and Weaving Co., Ltd. v. State of Bombay[1960] 11 S.T.C. 141., which held that the sale by the company of cotton waste produced in the course of manufacture of cloth and yarn was liable to tax was applicable. In so far as the sale of coal from out of the purchas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X