Madras High Court
State Of Tamil Nadu vs B.P.L. India Ltd. on 30 January, 1989
JUDGMENT Nainar Sundaram, J.
1. The question that arises for consideration in this revision is as to whether electro cardiograph (E.C.G.) would fall within either entry 41-A or entry 41-B or entry 41-C of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (1 of 1959). The assessing authority, for the assessment year 1981-82, for the respondent held that the item will fall under entry 41-C as "electronic systems .........". There was an appeal by the respondent and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the item will fall under 41-B, as domestic appliances used in hospitals and remanded the matter to the assessing authority as he had not issued the pre-assessment notice to the respondent, before finalising the assessment. The respondent preferred a further appeal to the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, and the said Tribunal, by its order, subject-matter of this revision, held that the item will fall neither under entry 41-B nor under entry 41-C, but it will fall only under entry 41-A "all electrical instruments ........" and allowed the appeal. The Revenue has preferred this revision as against the decision of the Tribunal.
2. There was an attempt on the part of the Revenue to indirectly question the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the item will fall under entry 41-B as domestic appliances and Revenue wanted to bring it under entry 41-C as "electronic systems .....", as done by the assessing authority. The Revenue having not agitated as against the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on this question and having had been content to rest there, it will not be in order for the Revenue to go back at this stage and contend that the item will fall under entry 41-C. The Tribunal held that the item will only fall under entry 41-A. This view, we must uphold, if we take note of the ratio of the highest Court in the land in Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1988] 69 STC 58, wherein the following observations of the High Court of Gujarat in Viswa & Co. v. State of Gujarat (1966) 17 STC 581, were approved :
"A domestic electrical appliance, in our opinion, would be an electrical appliance of a kind generally used for domestic purposes. It may also be used at places other than the home or the house, but that would not destroy the character of a domestic electrical appliance which attaches to it by reason of its being a kind of an electrical appliance generally used for the household. There are several electrical appliances which are generally used in the household, such as electric irons, electrical sewing machines and electrical cooking-ranges which are also used in other establishments. But these electrical appliances do not therefore cease to be domestic electrical appliances. It is of course not necessary that an electrical appliance, in order to satisfy the description of a domestic electrical appliance, must be actually used in the home or the house. What is necessary is that it must be of a kind which is generally used for household purposes and if that test is applied, there is no doubt that electric fans are domestic electrical appliances and the Tribunal was therefore right in holding that they fall within entry 52 of Schedule B."
3. The highest Court in the land further spelt out the ratio in the following terms :
"We agree that it is not necessary to be a domestic electrical appliance that it must be actually used in the home or the house. It must be of a kind which is generally used for household purposes. It appears to us that the types of items concerned in this appeal are generally used for household purposes and that is sufficiently goods test for classification in the light of the explanation to tariff item No. 33C."
4. Electro cardiograph (E.C.G.) can never be said to be generally used for domestic purposes. It is being used only in medical establishments and for medical purposes. It is certainly not of a kind, which is generally used for household purposes. We concur with the view of the Tribunal that the item can only fall within entry 41-A. In this view, we do not find any substance in this revision. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. We make no order as to costs.
5. Petition dismissed.