9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year 2003-04. The common issue involved in the revisions filed against KGST assessments is with regard to rate of tax on the product sold under the name Domex, which is used to clean and disinfect toilet commodes. During hearing, learned counsel Shri.Madhu Radhakrishnan appearing for the petitioner produced label and leaflets pertaining to the product. The case of the petitioner is that the product is not covered by any of the entries in the First Schedule to the KGST Act, and so much so, it should be assessed at 8% as an unclassified item in terms of the residuary entry to the Schedule. The case of the Department is that the product is essentially a cleaning agent falling under Entry 51 of the First Schedule to the KGST Act, and so m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e liquid as DOMEX CLEAN. There is no dispute that Domex is very much a cleaning agent, and when used to clean toilet commodes it acts as a cleaning agent cum disinfectant. The question therefore to be considered is whether the property of a cleaning agent as a disinfectant takes it outside the above entry. The scheme of the KGST Act is to levy tax on goods specified in the Schedules at the rates prescribed thereunder. However, goods which are not covered by any specific entry will be taxed at the rate prescribed in residuary entry. It can be noticed from the description and enumeration of goods under various entries that several entries are residuary in nature covering specified items and goods similar to those specifically stated. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is on account of non-production of all delivery notes issued to the assessee. Here again, we feel the addition is seen based on estimation of turnover for missing delivery notes. However, considering the ground for addition, we reduce it to Rs.10 lakhs. 6. The additional issue raised in S.T.Rev.No.132/2010, which is for the year 2002-03, is with regard to addition of Rs.6,67,200/-. Learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the addition is made solely on technical flow in brining goods with defective records for which penalty of Rs.46,037/- was levied under Section 29A(4) without any notice to the assessee. Learned Government Pleader defended the addition because according to him only on proof of evasion of tax penalty is le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents is factually incorrect and the assessee has produced all relevant documents including LRs, F-forms and Chartered Accountant's certification. However, learned Government Pleader relied on several decisions of this Court stating that unless physical movement of goods from one State to another is proved, the assessee cannot claim stock transfer by producing F-forms. In fact, if assessee had produced check post sealed LRs that would have been the conclusive evidence of stock transfer. In any case, what we notice is that the assessee has proved exemption to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs and balance stock transfer value of Rs.20 lakhs is disallowed for want of conclusive evidence. Here again, having regard to the documents produced, which includes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
