9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (12) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , galvanised, aluminised, tinned or coated such as by copper." Before item 4(xv) of the Second Schedule can apply, the wires in the present case must be of iron and steel. Certainly item 4(xv) of the Second Schedule cannot apply. Hence, the only item that will apply to the present case is item 109 of the First Schedule, because stainless steel wire is certainly an article made of stainless steel. Consequently, the conclusion of the Board of Revenue cannot be said to be erroneous. Hence the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the Court was delivered by JEEVAN REDDY, J.-The petitioner is a manufacturer of sandalwood oil. The assessment year concerned herein is 1970-71. Daring the said assessment year the petitioner sold certain qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this decision, the Commercial Tax Officer held that the sales in question are not sales in the course of export, but that, they are merely inter-State sales, liable to be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal again to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but with no effect. Its further appeal to the Tribunal also failed. Hence this tax revision case. The first contention urged by Mr. S. Dasaratharama Reddi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that in this case the order of the appellate authority dated 23rd March, 1974, had become final and all that was left to the assessing authority under the said order was to comply with the direction therein and work out the tax due, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en to the Commercial Tax Officer, to ignore the same and still hold that the transactions are inter-State sales, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, even assuming that the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were wrong in law. The decision of the Supreme Court was not rendered in the case of this assessee, nor in respect of this assessment and it does not, therefore, disturb or affect the finality and the binding nature of the appellate order. The learned Government Pleader contends that the aforesaid appellate order dated 23rd March, 1974, was itself bad, being contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mod. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa [1975] 36 STC 136 (SC), and that therefore, it was not binding upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
