Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (7) TMI 1089

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orld is taken, we do not find that the Tribunal has in any way misdirected itself. The interpretation, therefore, is in consonance with the product and goods which have been mentioned in the entry. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal's order and in the given facts and circumstances does not give rise to any substantial question of law and which needs to be determined by this Court. - Decided against Revenue. - Sales Tax Appeal No. 21 of 2012, Reference Application No.53 of 2010, Sales Tax Appeal No.22 of 2012, Reference Application No. 54 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 1-7-2014 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And B. P. Colabawalla,JJ. For the Petitioner : Ms. Anjali Helekar, AGP For the Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Motwani ORDER P. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the said period was scrutinized by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, VAT (Administration) at Kolhapur Division. He was of the view that the assessment of Bision Panel (Particle Board) was made at lower rate. The product should have been taxed at 13% and not at 8%. He noticed the infirmity in the assessment order and issued a notice to the assessee to correct this infirmity. He heard the assessee and eventually passed an order on 20th May, 2009 and revised the rate from 8% to 13%. That is how the demand in respect of the year 2001-02 was raised at ₹ 27,76,261/-. 4. Against the Revision in Tax, the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal being Appeal No.28 of 2009 which was allowed. The order of the Revisi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... society, refer entry K-4(1) of Noti. u/s 41, w.e.f. 1-10-1995. (4) W.o.T. Exempted on handicrafts made from Bamboo, refer entry A-79 of Noti. u/s 41, w.e.f. 1598. 7. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the process undertaken by the respondent assessee indicates that the wooden particles were blended with requisite quantity of cement and other chemical additives and water. The wood particles are blended with cement and additives. Since they are compressed with cement as a bonding material along with chemical additives, they would certainly qualify for the term particle boards and similar boards of other ligneous material. 8. Ms. Helekar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the revenue submits that the Tribunal has misinterpret .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates