9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (12) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Pai Co. [1980] 45 STC 58 and tested the correctness of the respective view points in the light of the material gathered by the revisional authority, we are not inclined to interefere with the ultimate conclusion reached by the Tribunal. 3.. The Tribunal merely followed its earlier decision in T.A. Nos. 798 of 1977, 63 and 66 of 1978 dated June 29, 1978. That decision was rendered prior to the aforementioned judgment of the Supreme Court in G.S. Pai Company's case [1980] 45 STC 58. The Tribunal itself had taken the view in another case viz., T.A. No. 456 of 1980 dated January 31, 1981 that the question whether the hume pipes sold by the assessee are "sanitary fittings" or not has to be answered in the context of the use they were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion has not been approached from this point of view, we think it desirable that the case be sent back to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner..............". 5.. In Indian Hume Pipe Company's case [1977] 39 STC 355 (SC), the question was whether R.C.C. or hume pipes can be regarded as "sanitary fittings". The Supreme Court observed as follows: "In these circumstances, therefore, we have to construe the expression 'sanitary fittings' in the popular sense of the term as it is used in our every day life. Thus construing, it would be manifest that there could be no question of use of R.C.C. or hume pipes, which are generally laid underground and are extremely heavy, for the purpose of use in lavatories, urinals or bath rooms, etc. By 'san ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Schedule of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and thus subjected the turnover to tax at a higher rate of 6 per cent. In reply to the show cause notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner, the respondent submitted that SWG pipes manufactured were of low grade clay having 100M to 150M diameter and two feet length. The assessee contended that they were not meant for use as sanitary fittings, for wash basins, commodes, urinals and lavatories. He contended that these were meant for use for drainage pipes and rain water pipes by agriculturists. He also referred to the booklet published by Indian Standard Institute, according to which, these pipes are used for discharge of faecal and waste material, etc., coming from sanitary appliances like ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be concluded that the pipes in question were meant to be used or put to use for the purposes mentioned by the Supreme Court in G.S. Pai Company's case [1980] 45 STC 58. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent-assessee is that they were for use as underground pipes for discharging the drain water, etc. What exactly is the nature of the goods and whether they are suitable for one or the other purpose has not been discussed at all by the revisional authority. As we have already observed, the material gathered by the Deputy Commissioner is not at all sufficient to come to the conclusion that the pipes sold by the respondent were meant for use or actually used as "sanitary fittings" connecting lavatories, urinals, sinks and wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
