9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all of similar nature though by size they may be different. Even if gitti, kankar, stone-ballast, etc. may all be looked upon as separate in commercial character from stone boulders offered for sale in the market, yet it cannot be presumed that Entry 40 of the notification is intended to describe the same as not stone at all. In fact the term 'stone' is wide enough to include the various forms such as gitti, kankar, stone ballast. Thus view taken by the majority of the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court that at the goods continue to be stone and they are not commercially different goods to be identified differently for the purposes of sales tax stands to reason. Appeal dismissed. - Civil Appeal No. 5654 of 1998, S.L.P. (Civil) No. 563 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He is of the view that tax was not attracted on both transactions. On second appeal, the Tribunal, by majority, upheld the view of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Department carried the matter further in revision to the High Court and the High Court in a very cryptic order dismissed the petition. The Department is in appeal before us. 3. The question raised before us is whether gitti, stone chips and dust continue to be stone or on crushing stone boulders into gitti, stone chips and dust different commercial goods emerge so as to attract tax on their sale. On behalf of the Department, it was contended that the process adopted by the dealer would amount to manufacture as per the definition of 'manufacture' under Section 2(e-1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be identifiable with the stone boulders, which have been bought by the dealer. 5. The view taken by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court is that the goods continue to be stone and they are not commercially different goods to be identified differently for the purposes of sales tax. The decision relied on by minority view in the Tribunal in Reliance Rocks Builders Suppliers v. State of Karnataka, (1983) 49 STC 110, turned on the concept of consumption of goods for the purpose of bringing into existence new goods. In that case the Court was not concerned with an entry of the nature with which we are concerned in the present case. Where the dealer had brought into existence new commercial goods by consuming the boulders to bring o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
