9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the High Court was right - Here also, by applying the said principle we find that there are no materials placed before this Court that the commodity which is the subject matter in both the occasions viz., for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 and for the present assessment years is different and distinct one - There are no change of circumstances also - On the other hand it is admitted that the commodity purchased and used by the assessee herein is only a 'common salt' - Therefore, having accepted the decision rendered by the Tribunal in respect of the very same commodity and treated it as an exempted goods under Entry 7 of Part B of the Third Schedule, there was no reason as to why the State took different view. Relying upon SHREE RAM MULTI TECH. LTD v. CCE [2006 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] wherein Supreme Court considered the question of 'res judicata' in classification dispute – Held that:- Assessee was entitled to challenge the classification, especially when they were parties to earlier proceedings - Applying the said SC reasoning and the finding that the Revenue being a party to the earlier decision of the Tribunal in respect of the very same classification disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 57(V) of Part B of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act only descriptive of the word wheat bran and did not require evidence of actual use by the purchase? 2. Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in law in failing to see that Serial No. 62 of Part B of the First Schedule to the Act only deal with salt unfit for human consumption or denatured salt? 2. In so far as the first question of law in respect of the item wheat bran is concerned, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to record a finding as to whether wheat bran sold by the assessee was a wheat bran used for cattle feed. Subsequent to the said order of remand passed by the Tribunal, it is seen that the Assessing Authority passed an assessment order on 30.11.2009 thereby granting exemption to the said item wheat bran. Hence, the assessee has no grievance in so far as the issue with regard to wheat bran is concerned. Accordingly, there is no necessity for us to answer the first question of law raised in both these revisions. 3. In so far as the second question of law with regard to the other item viz., common salt is concerned, the case of the assessee is that they purchased common sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for industrial purpose would match with the Entry 62 of Part B of the First Schedule. Accordingly, the Tribunal has agreed with the findings of the authorities below. The assessee thus aggrieved by the concurrent findings of all the forums below, has filed the present revisions before this Court by raising common substantial questions of law as stated supra. 6. Before going into the merits of the matter, we are placed with a fact that in the case of the very same assessee, the very same Tribunal in respect of the very same issue with regard to the common salt purchased and used, had given a finding in respect of earlier assessment years viz., 1997-98 and 1998-99 in STA.NOs. 503 and 502 of 2002 dated 25.7.2006 by holding that the common salt used by the assessee is nothing but a salt consumable only for human use and therefore, Entry 7 of Part B of the III Schedule alone will squarely be applicable. The Tribunal had also found in the said decision that who is using the salt is immaterial and the test is to see for what purpose it has been used. Consequently, the Tribunal has accepted the plea put forth by the assessee seeking for exemption under Entry 7 of Part B of the Third ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew, especially, when there was no change of circumstances or the commodity used in these two sets of assessment years. 8. In another decision reported in 2006(9) SCC 341 SHREE RAM MULTI TECH. LTD v. CCE, the Honourable Supreme Court considered the question of 'res judicata' in classification dispute. In that case, the appellant before the Supreme Court is the manufacturer of tarpaulin and classified the same under sub-heading 6306.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Such claim of the appellant therein was rejected by the Revenue and thereby classified the said item under sub Heading 3926.90. The appellant therein challenged the same before the Tribunal. The appellant's case was rejected by the Tribunal by holding that the classification of tarpaulin was already concluded by its earlier decision reported in (2003) 153 ELT 336 GUJARAT RAFFIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. CCE, by classifying it under Sub Heading 3926.90. Aggrieved against such order the appellant approached the Apex Court. While considering the entitlement of the appellant therein to challenge the classification, especially when they were parties to earlier proceedings, the Apex Court at para 9 held as f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r hand the word used under Entry 62 is only 'salt' for industrial use and not 'common salt' for industrial use. Likewise exemption granted to the item under Entry 7 of Part B of the Third Schedule, is 'common salt (sodium chloride) other than the salt for industrial use'. It is to be noted here that what is excluded from exemption is only the 'salt for industrial use' and not the 'common salt'. Therefore, the intention is very clear in making the distinction between the common salt as contemplated under Entry 7 of Part B of the Third Schedule and the salt used for industrial purpose as contemplated under Entry 62 of Part B of the First Schedule. It is not the case of the Revenue that the purchase made by the assessee is not a common salt. Their only contention is that though the assessee purchased common salt, they have used it for industrial purpose, which would fall under Entry 62 of Part B of the First Schedule and therefore they cannot seek exemption as per Entry 7 of Part B of the Third Schedule. 12. We are unable to agree with the contention raised by the Revenue and conclusions arrived at by the authorities below for the reasons sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
