9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o as to even prima facie establish that Methanol and Methyl Alcohol are known as two different commodities in the open market. Whether the assesse was liable to pay tax on Methanol as an unclassified item at the rate of 7% plus 1% or at the rate of 12% plus 1%, which was the tax applicable to Methyl Alcohol in terms of the Notification No. ST-II-3203/X-1012-1972 – Held that:- The Tribunal had committed a manifest error in treating the Methanol manufactured by the Assessee as distinct from Methyl Alcohol and therefore, committed a further error in treating it to be an unclassified item taxable at the rate of 7% plus 1%. The plea of the assessee that the scientific and technical meanings of the term or expressions need not to be applied in the matter of determination of a tariff or perceptions of products also has no application in the facts of the case. Suffice is to record that in the case in hand not only the meaning, which has been assigned to the commodity, namely, Methanol and Methyl Alcohol in the Text Book on the subject of Chemistry, but also that product in the Dictionaries has been taken into consideration by this Court, for coming to the conclusion that the Methanol and M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter. Accordingly, both the revisions were dismissed. The department filed a Special Leave to Appeal before the Apex Court only in respect of proceedings under the Central Sales Tax Act. No appeal was filed against the judgement of the High Court qua the proceedings under the State Sales Tax Act. The Apex Court allowed the Civil Appeal No. 4207 of 2000, arising out of Sales Tax Revision No. 1118 of 1990, vide judgement dated 14th September, 2005. Order of the High Court has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to this Court with a direction to decide the matter on merits. Learned Standing Counsel for the department submitted that the principles of res judicata do not apply in tax matters and even otherwise the order of the High Court passed in Revision No. 1117 of 1990 does not record reasons for upholding that Methanol and Methyl Alcohol were distinct commodities. Therefore, the judgement of the High Court in Revision No. 1117 of 1990 has no binding effect. Learned Standing counsel for the department states that Methanol and Methyl Alcohol are two different names of the same commodity and for the purpose he has placed reliance upon the meaning of the word "Methyl Al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the present dispute. On merits he points out that merely because chemical formula of two commodities is same, it will not mean that both commodities are commonly known as one and the same in the open market. By way of example, he refers to the case of Ice and water, both according to him have the same chemical formula, namely, H20, yet both are distinct commodities known differently in the common parlance. Therefore, the chemical formula cannot be the deciding factor for coming to the conclusion that Methanol and Methyl Alcohol are one and the same commodity. For the proposition, he has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of M/s. Goel Industries (Private) Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Lucknow reported in 1971 U.P.T.C.-697. He submits that the Apex Court has consistently held that for proper classification of goods, the common parlance test had to be applied and dictionary meaning, or scientific or technical meaning have no relevance. He referred to the judgements of the Apex Court in the case of Ponds India Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax, reported in 2008 U.P.T.C., 773, in the case of Asian Paints India Ltd. vs. Collec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the chemical formula cannot be the conclusive proof for holding that Methanol and Methyl Alcohol are one and the same commodity. In support of his case he had referred to the example of Ice and Water, whose chemical formula is same i.e. H2O. He supported his plea with reference to the judgements of the Apex Court in the case of Ponds India Ltd., Asian Paints India Ltd. and Commissioner of Central Excise (supras). This Court may only record that Methanol and Methyl Alcohol both exist in liquid stage and therefore, not only their chemical formula and qualities are one and the same, their physical properties are also one and the same. It is only where the physical properties are entirely different that two products with same chemical formula like in the case of Ice and Water, may have different use and may be understood differently in common parlance. It is on such facts only that the judgement of Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Goel Industries Private Ltd. (supra) has to be understood and applied. The plea so raised on behalf of the assessee does not in any way dilute the conclusion that the Methanol and Methyl Alcohol are two names of the same commodity. So fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or earlier in the matter of assessment under the State Sales Tax Act then this Court will not permit it to be perpetuated in all other assessment proceedings. The issue of quantum of the difference payable is of not much relevance as the Trade Tax Revision is to be decided on the issue of law involved. The preliminary objections raised on behalf of the assesse are, therefore, turned down. The plea of the assessee that the scientific and technical meanings of the term or expressions need not to be applied in the matter of determination of a tariff or perceptions of products also has no application in the facts of the case. Suffice is to record that in the case in hand not only the meaning, which has been assigned to the commodity, namely, Methanol and Methyl Alcohol in the Text Book on the subject of Chemistry, but also that product in the Dictionaries has been taken into consideration by this Court, for coming to the conclusion that the Methanol and Methyl Alcohol are two names of the same commodity. The assessee could not refer to any other name of the goods in the open market except for Methanol and Methyl Alcohol. Sri Saxena, learned counsel for the assessee contended that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
