1999 (5) TMI 590

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (1) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the mineral turpentine oil sold as thinner of paints, etc., sold by the appellant should be exigible to tax at 12 per cent under residuary entry No. 1, Part VI, Schedule II instead of being assessed at 16 per cent under entry No. 20, Part II, Schedule II? (2) Whether under the facts and ci .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... succeeded there. The Board found that the assessee had sold mineral turpentine oil which was distinct from turpentine oil and was not covered by entry No. 20, Part II, Schedule II and would fall in residuary entry as per the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India [1981] 48 STC 54 (MP); [1981] 14 VKN 373. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rrants no reference to this Court. 6.. This reference is accordingly answered in affirmative as Board was justified in holding that the mineral turpentine oil sold by the assessee as thinner was exigible to the tax at 12 per cent under the residuary entry 1 of Schedule II, Part VI of the Act. Same holds true about the levy of penalty which is rooted in appreciation of facts and does not give ris .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X