9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (7) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Tribunal, Dehradun Bench, Dehradun, in Second Appeal No. 304 of 1987 whereby the appeal was allowed and a relief of Rs. 12,844 in the disputed tax was granted to the assessee. 2.. I have heard Sri R.D. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the applicant, as well as Sri Bharatji Agrawal, learned counsel for the opposite party. 3.. The only question raised in this revision for determination i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h they cannot be treated as having been included in the classification referred to by the Notification No. ST-II-7040/X-6(17)76-U.P. Act-XV/48-Order-77 dated September 30, 1977. I have considered this submission but find myself unable to agree with his views. The past history of this classification shows that there were limited items under this category which were generally usable by the students ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial to the assessee should be accepted and the other one which is harmful or adverse to the assessee should be ignored. In the present case, if the items in question are treated as unclassified, though they do not appear apparently so, they will be liable to be taxed at higher rate of 7 per cent, whereas the classified items at serial No. 31 referred to above are liable to be taxed at the rate of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne out from the record. I do not find such plea having been raised or considered by the assessing authority or the appellate authority. Therefore, this objection is upheld and the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel is hereby rejected. 7.. For the aforesaid reasons I uphold the finding and judgment recorded by the Tribunal that the items in question are classified ones covered by e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
