9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Alok Mathur, J. For the Applicant : C.S.C. For the Opposite Party : Amitabh Mani ORDER ALOK MATHUR,J. The 'Vakalatnama' filed by Sri Yogesh Chandra Srivastava, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent is taken on record. Heard Sri Rohit Nandan Shukla, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the revisionist and Sri Yogesh Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the the respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for the State has filed the revision assailing the order of the Tribunal. However, at this juncture he is confining his arguments only on the three issues, that is classification of the 'Parachute Oil' 'Medikar' and 'Revived Instant Starch' which has been settled by this Court in favour of the assessee. Those three issues are held as under:- i. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the parachute Coconut oil falls within the category of 'oil of all kinds' while the said controversy was already settled by the Hon'ble Court in the case of M/s The Bombay Oil Industries (P) Limited, Kanpur Vs. The Commissioner of Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2008 U.P.T.C. page 1173 wherein the Hon'ble High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... item taxable at 12.5%. So far as the issue of 'Medikar' is concerned, Sri Yogesh Chandra Srivastava cited para 10,12, and 16 which are being reproduced herein below : 10. There can be no dispute over the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid authority. The thrust of the matter is how the courts have treated a particular product for the purpose of classification under the excise law and what status is to be given. The issue of anti-lice treatment arose in Collector of Central Excise v. Pharmasia (P) Ltd.8 . The tribunal reproduced the label appearing on every bottle of Mediker. The label is reproduced below:- Mediker ANTI-LICE TREATMENT DIRECTION FOR USE Shampoo hair with one capful of Mediker, Massage scalp for 3 minutes Rinse, Repeat. This 8 1990 (47) E.L.T. 658 (Tribunal) Page 13 13 usually eliminates Lice. For best results repeat shampooing 2 days later. WARNING The product is toxic if swallowed. Store far from food and drinking water. Keep away from children and pets. If it gets into the eyes wash affected area immediately with clean water COMPOSITION D-Phenothrin EP 0.23% W/V Triclosan E.P. 0.05% W/V base q.s. MEDIKER is the registered trade mark of Richardson ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t will not invite the liability of levy of entry tax. This Court in TTR No. 153 of 2011 M/s Marico Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes U.P. Lucknow and other connected matters in respect of 'Revived Instant Starch' decided on 12.09.2014, this Court held as under:- So far as classification of 'Revived Instant Starch' is concerned, it contains the following ingredients: Sl. No. Ingredients Percentage 1. Tapioca Starch QS to 100% 2. Sodium Laury 1 sulphate 0.70% 3. Silicon Dioxide 0.25% 4. Perfume Assem B 0.40% 5. Titanium Dioxide 0.25% 6. Microguard 0.75% 7. Colour Granules 1% The submission of the learned senior counsel is that Tapioca starch which is edible comprises about 97% of the product and the remaining items from 2 to 7 contains a negligible 3% of the chemicals and therefore Revive Starch must necessarily be classified as Starch falling in Entry 118 of Schedule II, Part A and therefore liable to tax as such and not be treated as an unclassified item. The submission further is that Entry 118 of the Schedule II, Part A mentions only Starch and does not draw any distinction between edible starch and non edible starch and therefore it would make no differ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the same exists inedible as well as inedible form. Therefore unles it is also shown that Sago and Sabudana do not exist in inedible form, the principle of ejusdem generis cannot be applied as a rule of interpretation to include Starch as mentioned in Entry 118 to include only edible Starch. At this point Shri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned senior counsel has referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1979 U.P.T.C. 573 (SC)Alladi Venkateshwarlu Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh where the Supreme Court had occasion to interpret the word Rice as existing in Item 66 (b) of the Schedule I to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and it was held in paragraph 10 that the term Rice is wide enough to include Rice in its various forms whether edible or inedible. Rice in the form of grain is not edible but parched rice and puffed rice are edible but the entry Rice covers both forms of rice. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment reads as under: It is clear that there is a distinction between paddy , as found in Item 8 of the Second Schedule, and rice , as mentioned under Item 66 of the First Schedule. Apparently, the removal of the husk makes this difference. It is true that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Entry 118 itself would have explicitly said so and therefore when the Legislature itself is silent a meaning or interpretation to a word used in the statute must not be given which the Legislature itself did not intend and did not say in so many words. I have perused the assessment order, first Appellate Order and the order of the Tribunal. The issue in question is no more res integra in the light of the aforesaid judgments of this Court as well as of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Further, the counsel for the revisionist has also fairly submitted that questions of law framed in the present revision have already been answered in the judgment dated 12.09.2014 and therefore the questions framed in the instant revision would be squarely covered by the said judgment. Learned counsel for the respondents also agreed with the aforesaid submission and submitted that the instant revision may be decided in the light of the aforesaid judgments of this Court and of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as referred herein above. In view of the above, all the questions are answered accordingly and the revision is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the aforesaid trade tax revision is dismissed for the reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
