9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Automatic Power Factor Control System is a brand name, but the commodity is microprocessor. This aspect of the matter was also not considered. In fact in the show-cause notice dated October 24, 2007, the respondent does not dispute the fact that the petitioner's product contained electronic integrated circuits and assemblies, nevertheless he proposed to revise the assessment. If the product contains electronic integrated circuits and assemblies, then it would fall under the sub-item No. 3 of G. O. Ms. No. 30 dated March 27, 2002 and consequently fall under entry 18 of Part B of the First Schedule and in such an event, the rate of tax would be only at four per cent. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the respondent. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns and passed the order of assessment on April 20, 2006. 3. Thereafter, another assessing officer has taken charge and issued a notice dated July 31, 2006, proposing to re-determine the total and taxable turnover. Though such notice was issued, it was not proceeded to and another notice was issued on October 24, 2007, combining all the proposals in the earlier notices. According to the respondent, the levy of four percent. is incorrect since the commodity is taxable at 12 per cent, as per the clarification issued by the Department dated July 2, 2004, and it is taxable at 12 per cent. notwithstanding the fact that the product contained electronic integrated circuits and assemblies . Therefore, proposal was made under section 16(1)(b) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was also not considered. In fact in the show-cause notice dated October 24, 2007, the respondent does not dispute the fact that the petitioner's product contained electronic integrated circuits and assemblies, nevertheless he proposed to revise the assessment. If the product contains electronic integrated circuits and assemblies, then it would fall under the sub-item No. 3 of G. O. Ms. No. 30 dated March 27, 2002 and consequently fall under entry 18 of Part B of the First Schedule and in such an event, the rate of tax would be only at four per cent. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the respondent. Therefore, the impugned order is held to be bad in law. 6. The respondent has levied penalty under section 12(3) (b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
