9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the assessment order, G.I. pipes are not shown at all as one of the items on which the dispute as to rate of tax arises. The assessing authority described the goods as "G.I. fittings". Thus, the suffix "pipes" is not found after "G.I." in the assessment order. Either "G.I. pipes" or "G.I. fittings" are not referred to in the first appeal order at all. 2.. The Tribunal negatived the contention of the appellant that "G.I. pipes" are declared goods falling under entry 2(xi) of the Third Schedule to the APGST Act corresponding to item (ii) of section 14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The item reads: "Steel tubes, both welded and seamless, of all diameters and lengths including tube fittings." 3.. The Tribunal accepted the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cult to endorse the cryptic reasoning of the Tribunal that steel tubes become a different commodity because they are used in bathrooms and lavatories or for the purpose of water supply. The characteristics of steel tubes are not lost depending on their user if they are otherwise steel tubes. 4.. We need not dilate on this aspect further in view of the direct decision of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1989] 74 STC 176; (1989) 3 SCC 127. The Supreme Court held that the G.I. pipes are steel tubes within the meaning of section 14(iv)(xi) of the Central Sales Tax Act and a different commercial commodity does not emerge on account of galvanising the steel pipe. The contention of the petitioner should therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion of the appellant-assessee that they are nothing but cast iron castings and therefore fall within the ambit of entry 2(i) of the Third Schedule has not been accepted by the Tribunal. Item 2(i) of the Third Schedule reads: "Pig iron and cast iron including ingot, moulds and bottom plates." The view taken by the Tribunal has to be upheld in view of the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court as well. 7.. In Bengal Iron Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer [1993] 90 STC 47, the Supreme Court held that the cast iron is different from cast iron castings which are covers, bends, etc., manufactured and sold by the assessee. Those products are in commercial parlance different and distinct goods from cast iron. The broad observations i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ense C.I. pipes were held to be not comprehended within the scope of the terminology "cast iron". 9.. A division Bench of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Venkatesh Foundry [1994] 92 STC 34 also took the view that C.I. pipes, etc., which are manufactured out of the cast iron are separate commercial commodities and they cease to be cast iron under sub-item (i) of entry 2. 10.. The above decisions furnish a complete answer to the contention of the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner persisted in his argument that the clarification given by the State Government under section 42(A) of the APGST Act by G.O. No. 383 Revenue dated April 17, 1985 is binding on the tax authorities and they are estopped from denyin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
