9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies. The petitioner made "wool jute based loop pile carpets" specially for the purpose of Air India, Indian Airlines and such other customers. These carpets were fireproof because of the prevulcanised latex mixed with hydraulic alumina coating at the base. The carpets admittedly consist of 60 per cent of wool in addition to jute and other material. The petitioner's contention that it was exempt under the relevant entry as woollen fabric was rejected for the reason that the coating of prevulcanised latex mixed with hydraulic alumina changed the character of the commodity so as to take it out of the relevant entry. 2.. Section 9 exempts from tax the goods specified in the Third Schedule to the Act. Entry 7 of the Third Schedule reads: " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oollen fabric" as defined under the Act. The reason for so finding appears to be that the carpet underwent a manufacturing process by reason of two facts: (1) the base of the carpet is coated with prevulcanised latex mixed with hydraulic alumina, and (2) the carpet is cut into required sizes. 3.. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the carpet is manufactured in the correct proportion of wool and other materials so as not to fall outside the ambit of the entry. The entry prescribes a minimum mix of 40 per cent of wool by weight, whereas admittedly the carpet is made of 60 per cent of wool by weight. The question then is whether by reason of the coating with the solution and the slicing of the carpet, what was originally manufactured a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r for the purpose of the entry so long as it is a textile, no matter how constructed, how manufactured or the nature of the material from which it was made, provided the woollen mix is not less than 40 per cent by weight. The admitted facts show that that was the position in the present case. See also the principle stated by the Supreme Court in Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka [1986] 63 STC 239 and Atul Glass Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1986] 63 STC 322 and by this Court in Kesavan Co. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax [1976] 37 STC 221, Manager, Pulpally Devaswom v. State of Kerala [1977] 40 STC 350 and Radha's Fancy Piece Goods Merchants v. State of Kerala [1981] 48 STC 361. 5.. In the circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
