9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (1) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Prasad, Consultant, and Ramesh Gantra, Prop. appeared for the hearing. Shri Gopal Prasad who explained the petitioner's case stated that the petitioners were manufacturing stand for gas oven and not stand for hot plate as mentioned in the Asstt. Collector's order. He contended that the gas stove stand should not be treated as an article of furniture. According to him the Dictionary meaning of the word 'furniture' was not relevant for the purpose of classification of the product since the trade does not understand the goods as articles of furniture. In this connection, he relied upon the decision taken by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay in respect of the same goods manufactured by the petitioners. The Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be denied the benefit up to 2-9-1968 when it has actually been found by the Department that they got the electric connection only with effect from 2-9-1968. It was also contended that in this case the petitioners have been penalised separately for five financial years which is not warranted and if at all any penalty is to be imposed it should be imposed only once and not five times. Government of India have carefully considered the written and oral submissions. The petitioners have contended that the goods in question were actually gas stove stands and not hot plate stands observed in the Asstt. Collector's orders. Govt. observe that whether the goods were gas stove stands or hot plate stands, it would make a little difference inasm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner held is that a gas stove stand would more appropriately fall under the head for stand for gas oven instead of under the head iron and steel furniture. In the Central Excise Tariff there is no corresponding entry for stand for gas oven. That being the case, the decision of the Commissioner of Sales Tax would not be relevant to this case. Government however find force in the second contention of the petitioners that if the verification of the records done by the Department showed that the petitioners got electric connection in their factory with effect from 2-9-1968 only, then no duty ought to have been levied upto this period notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners themselves admitted before the Appellate Collector that they di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
