9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 872X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal is allowed. - 54, 55 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 17-11-2010 - ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND AJAY KUMAR MITTAL , JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J. This order will dispose of V.A.T. Appeal Nos. 54 and 55 of 2010 as common questions of law are involved therein. V.A.T. Appeal No. 54 has been filed under section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short, the Act ) against the order of the VAT Tribunal, Punjab (constituted under the Act ibid), in Appeal (VAT) No. 657 of 2009 decided on February 11, 2010, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law: (A) Whether the honourable Tribunal was legally justified in classifying the battery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r there is any explanation that the interpretation which may be put to cellular phones mentioned in HSN Code 8525.20.17 under the Excise Act will be applicable. During arguments it was even admitted that charger is not part but is an accessory. Merely because chargers are put in the box in which cell phone is sold and separate price for the charger is not shown in the box or not charged in the invoice, that does not mean that the charger will be taxed at the same rate of tax as the cell phone is taxed. Rule 53(c) of the Punjab VAT Rules makes it obligatory for a person/dealer to maintain accounts showing sale record separately of goods sold at different tax rates. Under these circumstances, the Assessing Authority had rightly charged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Collector of C. Ex. [1993] 66 ELT 574 (Cal) and Collector of Central Excise, Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. [1995] 77 ELT 23 (SC). Relying upon Sprint R. P. G. India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs I, Delhi [2000] 116 ELT 6 (SC), it was submitted that essential character of the goods in question in a composite transaction comprising of different components has to be determined with reference to main component of higher value. The learned counsel for the Revenue on the other hand supported the finding recorded by the Tribunal and submits that the charger was not integral part of the cell phone and was an accessory. Cell phone could be used even without charger. In such a situation, mere fact that the chargers were sold in a compos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Transmission apparatus other than apparatus for radio or TV broadcasting: . . . (g) Cellular telephone 8525.20.17 Prior to January 25, 2006, the said entry reads as under: 60.. IT products including computer, telephone, cell phones, digital video disk and compact disk teleprinter and wireless equipment and parts thereof. A perusal of above entry shows that even part of products mentioned in the entry was covered therein. When cell phone is sold in a composite package without any extra charges for the battery charger, the battery charger is a part of cell phone. Mere fact that battery charger was not affixed to the cell phone will not mean that it is different item. The entry in question cannot be read as excluding batt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
