Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. An entry in taxation matter, broadly, can be either ----

(1) Illustrative and inclusive entry.

(2) Restrictive and exhaustive entry.

An entry having references- all types of, all kinds of, such as, such goods, like articles, similar types, this kind, including, etc----, is an entry of inclusive and illustrative one. Such types of entries are of larger scope and ambit than what is described there in.

Where as entry which sans references all types of, all kinds of, such goods, like articles, similar types, this kind, including, etc ---, is entry of restrictive and exhaustive in nature. Such entries are by name, with specific description and some times with reference like that is to say, namely. The scope and ambit of such entry is specific, limited and confined to what has been described there in.

The entry at Sr. No.-125 of the Schedule -IV, as claimed by the assessee, is read as spectacles, part and components thereof, contact lens and lens cleaner.

This entry is plain, clear and without any use of genus, hence, it is an exhaustive and restrictive entry. This view would get further strength if it is compared with those entries of inclusive and illustrative ones of this schedule only. For example, entries of this Schedule IV at Sr. No.-104 - printed material including diary, calender etc. These all entries are found with genus and comparison between these on one hand and that at Sr. No.-125 would show a distinction is that all the entries at Sr. No.-2, 3, 21 & 104 are with a genus and scope enlarging words- such as, like, other, etc, including, hence inclusive and illustrative entries. Whereas, entry at Sr. No.-125 is with specific description and it ends without having any genus and scope enlarging word, hence it is a restrictive and exhaustive entry. Accordingly, inclusion of sunglasses into it, found to be not permissible.

Accordingly, applying this cardinal principle of classification, the impugned goods viz- sunglasses cannot be formed as spectacles.

While Assessing Officer distinguished the judgment in the case of Ramchandra Choitram Sons v. Collector of Central Excise, a decision of the CEGAT, Harmonized system of nomenclature (HSN), order dated 03.01.2006 passed by the authority for classification and advance ruling under Karnataka Value Added Tax, 2003, he inter alia, observed and held as under:-

As discussed earlier, classification structure of the goods in R-VAT Act, 2003 is very different from those two major indirect tax statutes of the Custom Tariff Act, 1975 and the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In these statutes, the goods are covered in various sections and then sections into chapters, headings, sub-headings etc. For classification purpose in these statutes, rules for interpretation, section notes, chapter notes and heading notes etc. have also been provided.There are separate chapters for a class/type of the goods e.g. Livestock, minerals, spices, Rubber, papers .... etc. Whereas in the R-VAT Act, 2003, the goods have been grouped in different tax schedules. Hence, it becomes more imperative to go by specific description of the goods given in an entry. It can not be a case that particular goods have to be fit in an entry, though not having any mention of that goods, specifically when that entry is not an inclusive or illustrative but a restrictive and exhaustive one i.e. entry no 125 of Schedule IV. Therefore the reply submitted by the dealer deserves to be disallowed and the relied upon cited decisions are not applicable in the facts and circumstances in the present case.