1997 (5) TMI 395

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tioner to show cause why penalty be not imposed under section 4-B(5) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (now U.P. Trade Tax Act) (briefly, "the Act") for the assessment year 1980-81. 2.. The brief facts are that the petitioner applied for recognition certificate under section 4-B(2) of the Act for the manufacture of rubber products. The recognition certificate was granted and the petitioner purchas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the manufacture of goods as mentioned in the recognition certificate, then it could not be said that raw material was used contrary to the terms of the recognition certificate and no penalty can be imposed in that case. 5.. The question is whether the tubes manufactured by the petitioner for the animal driven vehicles can be said to be rubber product within the meaning of the term "rubber p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion 4 of the Act. The question of exemption of turnover will be relevant for the purposes of assessment, but so far as question of levying penalty is concerned, penalty can be levied only when raw material purchased under the recognition certificate, is used in the manufacture of goods not covered by the recognition certificate. This is not the case here, inasmuch as the petitioner used the raw ma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X