9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent : .K. Vedamurthy. JUDGMENT :- Dilip B. Bhosale, J Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Though these revision petitions are placed before us for admission, by consent, those were heard for final disposal at this stage. 3. In the memorandum of revision petitions, the petitioner have raised several questions of law. Sri. K.P. Kumar, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners, however, submits that only the following questions deserve consideration: (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal as well as the authorities below, in law, were justified in holding that VSATs are not covered by entry 53 in the third schedule to the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, (for short the Act ) overlooking item No.5 in the Notification dated 06.04.2006 issued by the Government of Karnataka?' (B) Whether the Tribunal and the authorities below were justified in interpreting the relevant entry-5 in the notification dated 06.04.2006, overlooking the Rules for interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short the Tariff Act ) read with the explanatory notes therein, and rejecting the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id Entry only on the strength of Notification dated 06.04.2006 issued by the Government of Karnataka in the exercise of powers conferred under section 4(1)(a) r/w Entry 53 of III Schedule of the Act. This Notification gives description of the goods, to be covered by Entry 53, with reference to the goods specified with the heading and the sub-heading numbers under the Tariff Act, as IT products. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, gone through the relevant materials placed before us in the light of relevant entries in the third schedule of the Act, the Tariff Act and general Rules for the interpretation of the entries in the Tariff Act. 9. In view of the grounds of challenge and the questions raised, we have examined the contentions urged by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner, is covered by Entry 53 of the third Schedule of the Act r/w Section 4(1)(a)(ii) thereof, in the light of the Notification dated 06.04.2006 and that the item 5 in the table as reflected in the notification had not been interpreted by the Tribunal as provided for by the Rules for interpretation of the Tariff Act read with explan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. 8533.10 Fixed carbon resistors, composition or film types 9. 8536 Switches, connectors, relays, fuses and sockets for upto 5 amps. Explanations: (1) The Rules for the interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 read with the Explanatory Notes as updated from time to time published by the Customs Co-operation Council, Brussels apply for the interpretation of this notification. (2) Where any commodities are described against any heading or, as the case may be, sub-heading and the aforesaid description is different in any manner from the corresponding description in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, then only those commodities described as aforesaid will be covered by the scope of the notification and other commodities though covered by the corresponding description in the Central Excise Tariff will not be covered by the scope of the notification. (3) Subject to the Explanation 2, for the purpose of any entry contained in the notification, where the description against any heading or, as the case may be, sub heading, matches fully with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arefully perused these Rules including general explanatory notes and examined the notification dated 6-4-2006 and so also, Entry No.53 of the third schedule to the Act. We have also gone through the impugned orders. We find substance in the submissions advanced by Mr. K.P. Kumar, learned senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner to the extent that the Rules for interpretation of the notification were not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. In other words the Tribunal did not interpret the entries in the table, as reflected in the notification dated 6-4-2006, in the light of these rules which provide for interpretation of the Notification. 13. Mr. K.P. Kumar, submitted that Heading 8525 , Sub-heading 8525.20 and tariff item 8525.20.91 in the CET ought to have been read by the authorities below in the light of the Rules for interpretation of the first Schedule-Excise Tariff. He submitted that the description of articles in tariff item No.8525.20.91 will have to be read to understand that the article mentioned therein is a sub-classification of sub-heading 8525.20, that is, transmission apparatus incorporating reception apparatus and that the sub-heading in the Tariff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
