9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 917X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... U. and K. N. Sreekumaran for the petitioner. Boby John and Boby Joseph Government Pleaders, for the respondents. JUDGMENT These appeals are by automobile spare parts dealers registered under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, for short, the KVAT Act . They trade in automobile spare parts, nuts, bolts, etc. They challenge Order No. C7.37542/06/CT dated December 14, 2006 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under section 94 of the KVAT Act clarifying that nut, bolt and screws made of iron and steel, used as spare parts of motor vehicles are classifiable under HSN 8708, and hence, will fall under entry 67(7) of SRO No. 82/06. The contention is on the ground that the afore-noted items would fall under the speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Interpretation, goods which cannot be classified in accordance with the Rules, is to be classified under the heading appropriate to the goods to which they are most akin . Under section 6 of the KVAT Act, goods specified in the Second and Third Schedules thereto are charged to duty at the rates specified therein, whereas goods not falling within those two Schedules are assessable to duty under separate notifications to be issued by the State Government. The Rules of Interpretation require that in cases where Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN) code number is indicated against the tariff item mentioned in the Third Schedule; then, one has to go by the provisions of the HSN as adopted by the Tariff Act. As held in Reckitt Benckise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the authority shall decide the question after giving the parties to the dispute a reasonable opportunity to put forward their case and produce evidence. When consideration of evidence and hearing of parties are contemplated the exercise of such power should be coupled with expression of the reasons, dependent upon the facts and materials available. The impugned order does not disclose the reasoning process by which the Commissioner had concluded that the goods fall under SRO No. 82/06. For the aforesaid reasons, these appeals are allowed setting aside the impugned order No. C7.37542/06/CT dated December 14, 2006 and requiring the competent authority in terms of section 94 of the KVAT Act to decide the matter de novo, after following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
