9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acturers of rubber and rubberized gasket, ring, liner, bush, seal, block, mounting, sleeve, valve, packing, spring, kit, etc. During the assessment period in question, the applicants received order from MGR Rubber Company of 86/1, B.T. Road, Tala, Kolkata 700 002 (pro forma respondent) for supplying certain goods, claimed to be engineering goods, which included ring packing bush, gasket for bracket compressors, piston packing for brake cylinders, gasket victaulic coupling, synthetic rubber ring and flexible pipe coupling. It has been submitted in this application that pro forma respondent had obtained order from railways for supplying the aforesaid goods and had placed back to back order on the applicants for manufacturing those goods according to the specification desired by the railways. These goods after being manufactured by the applicants were sold to the pro forma respondent at a price of Rs. 15,14,780 levying tax at eight per cent, the rate prescribed for engineering goods. The assessing authority during the assessment for the period in question held those as rubber goods and levied tax at 12 per cent on the ground that the applicants did not sell the goods in questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods. The assessing authority during the assessment for the period in question held those as rubber goods and levied tax at 12 per cent on the ground that the applicants did not sell the goods in question direct to the railways but to the pro forma respondent from whom the applicants had purchased rubber, one of the basic raw materials for the purpose of manufacturing those items. This order was challenged by the applicants before the ACCT/KNC in Appeal Case No. A/AC/N/BS/12/06-07. The appellate authority by giving her reasons observed that the applicants sold rubber goods to the pro forma respondent and those items would attract tax at 12 per cent and not at eight per cent as claimed by the applicants. This order was passed on January 18, 2007. Being aggrieved by the said order of the ACCT/KNC, the applicants preferred revision petition before the Additional CCT/WB who under his order dated February 29,2008 confirmed the appellate order by observing as below: 8. Hence the rubber goods sold by the petitioner cannot be termed as engineering goods. Secondly, the petitioner did not sell the rubber goods directly to the railways. Therefore, the petitioner s sales of rubbe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears that the dispute boils down to determination as to whether the goods supplied by the applicants would fall within entry 198 or 242 or 146(xxix) of Part A of Schedule IV to the 1994 Act. The learned advocate during the course of his argument explained the meaning of the word engineering . Engineering, as we understand, is the application of scientific principles to the optimal conversions of natural resources into structures, machines, products, systems and processes for the mankind (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 4, Mycropaedia Ready Reference, 15th Edition, page 496). If we go by this definition, we will find the presence of engineering skill in all the goods, from the very common to the most sophisticated, manufactured and used by us. Admittedly some sort of engineering skill is required for the manufacturing of the disputed items. We feel that for the purpose of examining as to whether the items in question would fall within the meaning of engineering goods, we have to keep in mind the entries made against serial No. 198. The entry against serial No. 198 starts with the expression engineering goods, that is to say, and thereafter followed by various specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were supplied initially to pro forma respondent and subsequently, as claimed, the pro forma respondent supplied those goods to the railways. It has also been claimed that goods in question were manufactured as per specification of railways. The appellate authority (the ACCT/KNC) in his order dated January 18, 2007 observed that apart from a note in purchase orders/sale bills that the goods were meant for Indian Railways there was no proof that those were sold to Indian Railways. This requires an enquiry. No such enquiry was made by any of the concerned authorities. Since the basic material required for manufacturing those items was rubber they came to the conclusion that the goods supplied were rubber goods and exigible to tax at 12 per cent. We, however, do not agree with the submission of the learned advocate that even when the goods not manufactured specifically for the railways but because of the fact that those goods can be used as spare parts/components of many of the items mentioned in the entry relating to engineering goods (entry No. 198) they should be treated as goods covered by item (xxxv) of entry against serial No. 198. We have already discussed that for being consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
