9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Board appears to be unjustified, and when Entry No.28 mentions about tax on 1 to 27, which includes RCRs and Radio Pagers, to be applicable at the rate of 4%, in my view any part including batteries would cover in Entry No.28. Battery is certainly fitted for RCRs or used in Cars and for other diverse purposes and unless a battery is fitted into a RCR or so to say a Car, it would be non-functional and such RCRs or/and Cars will not start and will not function. Once there is a specific rate of 4% for the parts sold, in my view the finding reached by the AO as well as the Tax Board is contrary to the specific Entry - the claim of assessee, in my view, appears to be just and proper and the rate of 4% was rightly paid by the assessee and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner (Appeals), who after taking into consideration the certificates issued by Army Authorities, and the facts brought on record, held that batteries being used in RCRs cannot be separately taxed at the rate of 12.5% and the very nature of the batteries being integral part of RCRs, rate of 4% was only applicable. 4. The Revenue preferred appeal before the Tax Board, who after analysing the material on record, held that batteries are being separately sold and Residuary rate of 12.5%, which was applied by the AO, was just and proper and accordingly reversed the finding of DC(A). 5. Learned counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that the assessee is only a dealer of batteries which is mainly and primarily supplied to Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue vehemently contended that the assessee is a seller of batteries and such batteries can be used for diverse purposes and are not merely integral part of RCRs. Learned counsel contended that the Tax Board has analysed the Entry again and has come to a specific finding that batteries sold separately were not an integral part of Radio sets and thus contended that the finding recorded by the Tax Board is just and proper, and relied upon State of Punjab Ors. v. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2015 SC 1068, and State of Uttar Pradesh Anr. v. Kores (India) Ltd. 1990 (26) ECR 464 (SC). 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgments relied upon by them. 8. It has already be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere supplied by the assessee to the Army, were accessories of Radio Set STARS V 5W, and Radio Communication Receiver is incomplete/non-functional without the said part being placed. Once there is a specific certificate by the Army itself, who purchased the said batteries, in my view the finding reached by the Tax Board appears to be unjustified, and when Entry No.28 mentions about tax on 1 to 27, which includes RCRs and Radio Pagers, to be applicable at the rate of 4%, in my view any part including batteries would cover in Entry No.28. Battery is certainly fitted for RCRs or used in Cars and for other diverse purposes and unless a battery is fitted into a RCR or so to say a Car, it would be non-functional and such RCRs or/and Cars will not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atteries were component parts and there was a finding that batteries were being used for tractors as well, and tractor being not motor vehicle, therefore, claim of the Revenue was that different rate would apply, however, the court analysing the provisions, came to the conclusion that battery specifically falls as component part even though it has been used in a tractor and thus directed to apply the same rate. 11.3 The apex court in the case of Hindustan Poles Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise (supra) has held that it is settled law that when one particular item is covered by one specified entry, then the Revenue is not permitted to travel to the residuary entry, and the residuary entry is meant only for those categories of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Banaras Battery Works 1981 U.P.T.C. 974, had an occasion to consider whether battery is an accessory or a part and it held that while an accessory has been held to be an article which is used for convenient and smooth functioning, whereas a battery cannot be said to be an accessory rather a vehicle is not complete without battery as the vehicle cannot operate without a battery, therefore, battery is a component part of motor vehicle and held that same rate is applicable. 15. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the Revenue in the case of State of Punjab Ors. v. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable on facts, as insofar as cell phone battery charger is con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
