Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.26 seconds)The Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994
Additional District And Sessions ... vs Registrar General, High Court Of Madhya ... on 18 December, 2014
Reliance in placed on Apex Court judgment of X vs.
Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:36:15 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:21225] (7 of 16) [STR-119/2020]
(Neutral Citation: 2022/INSC/171) reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 171 to submit that one additional or different fact can
make a world of difference between conclusion in two cases even
when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee has further
highlighted that against the Co-ordinate Bench judgment dated
22.12.2016, the petitioner-assessee has preferred an appeal
which is pending adjudication with the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal Nos. 15693-15695 of 2017 arising out of SLP (Civil)
No. 19671/2017.
Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Baroda, ... on 16 January, 1990
4.3) The third submission of learned counsels for the
petitioner-assessee is that it is an established cannon of
classification that a specific entry would override a general entry.
Reliance in this regard is placed on Apex Court judgments of
Bharat Forge and Press Industries (P) Ltd. vs. Collector of
Central Excise, Baroda, Gujarat reported in 1990 (45) ELT
525 (SC), Dunlop India Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in
(1976) 2 SCC 241, Mauri Yeast India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh reported in (2008) 5 SCC 680, Commissioner
of Commercial Tax, U.P. vs. A.R. Thermosets (Pvt.) Ltd.
reported in (2016) 16 SCC 122, State of Maharashtra vs.
Bradma of India Ltd. reported in (2005) 140 STC 17 (SC),
Hindustan Poles Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central
Excise, Calcutta reported in (2006) 145 STC 625 (SC), and
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and Ors. vs. Ved Ram reported
in 2012 (277) ELT 299 (SC). It is stated that a special entry
must prevail over the general entry and that the residuary clause
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:36:15 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:21225] (8 of 16) [STR-119/2020]
can be invoked only if the department can establish that the goods
in question can, by no conceivable process of reasoning, be
brought under any of the tariff items.
Dunlop India Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 October, 1975
Reliance in this regard can be placed on A.R. Thermosets (Pvt.)
Ltd. (supra), Hindustan Poles Corporation (supra), Dunlop
India (supra) and Mauri Yeast India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The
reliance placed by the Tax Board on Co-ordinate Bench judgment
of Pepsico India Holding (S.B. STR No. 194/2009; decided
on 22.12.2016) (supra) is onerous for the simple reason that
the Co-ordinate Bench had classified the goods in the more
specific entry, especially after observing that the goods in question
can technically be considered namkeen. Merely because the
specific entry of 'preserved food articles' did not transition from
RST Act to RVAT Act is no reason to automatically place the goods
in question in the residual entry. In these circumstances, the
correct approach would have been independent analysis of the
relevant entries under the RVAT Act and examining whether the
Revenue had discharged its onus to establish that the goods in
question cannot, by any conceivable means, be included in any of
the specific entries. Accordingly, the conclusion of the Tax Board,
to the extent that it is based on Co-ordinate Bench judgment of
Pepsico India Holding (S.B. STR No. 194/2009; decided on
22.12.2016) (supra) cannot be sustained.
M/S. Mauri Yeast India Pvt. Ltd vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 April, 2008
Reliance in this regard can be placed on A.R. Thermosets (Pvt.)
Ltd. (supra), Hindustan Poles Corporation (supra), Dunlop
India (supra) and Mauri Yeast India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The
reliance placed by the Tax Board on Co-ordinate Bench judgment
of Pepsico India Holding (S.B. STR No. 194/2009; decided
on 22.12.2016) (supra) is onerous for the simple reason that
the Co-ordinate Bench had classified the goods in the more
specific entry, especially after observing that the goods in question
can technically be considered namkeen. Merely because the
specific entry of 'preserved food articles' did not transition from
RST Act to RVAT Act is no reason to automatically place the goods
in question in the residual entry. In these circumstances, the
correct approach would have been independent analysis of the
relevant entries under the RVAT Act and examining whether the
Revenue had discharged its onus to establish that the goods in
question cannot, by any conceivable means, be included in any of
the specific entries. Accordingly, the conclusion of the Tax Board,
to the extent that it is based on Co-ordinate Bench judgment of
Pepsico India Holding (S.B. STR No. 194/2009; decided on
22.12.2016) (supra) cannot be sustained.
Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P vs M/S A.R. Thermosets (Pvt.) Ltd on 6 September, 2016
Reliance in this regard can be placed on A.R. Thermosets (Pvt.)
Ltd. (supra), Hindustan Poles Corporation (supra), Dunlop
India (supra) and Mauri Yeast India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The
reliance placed by the Tax Board on Co-ordinate Bench judgment
of Pepsico India Holding (S.B. STR No. 194/2009; decided
on 22.12.2016) (supra) is onerous for the simple reason that
the Co-ordinate Bench had classified the goods in the more
specific entry, especially after observing that the goods in question
can technically be considered namkeen. Merely because the
specific entry of 'preserved food articles' did not transition from
RST Act to RVAT Act is no reason to automatically place the goods
in question in the residual entry. In these circumstances, the
correct approach would have been independent analysis of the
relevant entries under the RVAT Act and examining whether the
Revenue had discharged its onus to establish that the goods in
question cannot, by any conceivable means, be included in any of
the specific entries. Accordingly, the conclusion of the Tax Board,
to the extent that it is based on Co-ordinate Bench judgment of
Pepsico India Holding (S.B. STR No. 194/2009; decided on
22.12.2016) (supra) cannot be sustained.
State Of Maharashtra vs M/S. Bradma Of India Ltd on 16 February, 2005
4.3) The third submission of learned counsels for the
petitioner-assessee is that it is an established cannon of
classification that a specific entry would override a general entry.
Reliance in this regard is placed on Apex Court judgments of
Bharat Forge and Press Industries (P) Ltd. vs. Collector of
Central Excise, Baroda, Gujarat reported in 1990 (45) ELT
525 (SC), Dunlop India Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in
(1976) 2 SCC 241, Mauri Yeast India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh reported in (2008) 5 SCC 680, Commissioner
of Commercial Tax, U.P. vs. A.R. Thermosets (Pvt.) Ltd.
reported in (2016) 16 SCC 122, State of Maharashtra vs.
Bradma of India Ltd. reported in (2005) 140 STC 17 (SC),
Hindustan Poles Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central
Excise, Calcutta reported in (2006) 145 STC 625 (SC), and
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and Ors. vs. Ved Ram reported
in 2012 (277) ELT 299 (SC). It is stated that a special entry
must prevail over the general entry and that the residuary clause
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:36:15 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:21225] (8 of 16) [STR-119/2020]
can be invoked only if the department can establish that the goods
in question can, by no conceivable process of reasoning, be
brought under any of the tariff items.
Hindustan Poles Corporation vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 27 March, 2006
Reliance in this regard can be placed on A.R. Thermosets (Pvt.)
Ltd. (supra), Hindustan Poles Corporation (supra), Dunlop
India (supra) and Mauri Yeast India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The
reliance placed by the Tax Board on Co-ordinate Bench judgment
of Pepsico India Holding (S.B. STR No. 194/2009; decided
on 22.12.2016) (supra) is onerous for the simple reason that
the Co-ordinate Bench had classified the goods in the more
specific entry, especially after observing that the goods in question
can technically be considered namkeen. Merely because the
specific entry of 'preserved food articles' did not transition from
RST Act to RVAT Act is no reason to automatically place the goods
in question in the residual entry. In these circumstances, the
correct approach would have been independent analysis of the
relevant entries under the RVAT Act and examining whether the
Revenue had discharged its onus to establish that the goods in
question cannot, by any conceivable means, be included in any of
the specific entries. Accordingly, the conclusion of the Tax Board,
to the extent that it is based on Co-ordinate Bench judgment of
Pepsico India Holding (S.B. STR No. 194/2009; decided on
22.12.2016) (supra) cannot be sustained.
Ramavatar Budhaiprasad Etc vs Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola on 14 March, 1961
4.5) The fifth submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner-assessee is that even as per common parlance test, the
goods in question are considered to be 'namkeens'. Reliance is
placed on affidavits from traders and consumers of the goods in
question to buttress the submission that the goods in question are
perceived to be 'namkeen' in the common parlance. Reliance is
also placed on Apex Court judgments of Collector of Central
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:36:15 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:21225] (9 of 16) [STR-119/2020]
Excise, Kanpur vs. Krishna Carbon Paper Co. reported in
(1989) 1 SCC 150, Ramavatar Budhaiprasad and Ors. vs.
Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola reported in AIR 1961 SC
1325, Purnia vs. State of Orissa reported in AIR 1979 SC
1454, Indian Cable Company Ltd., Calcutta vs. Collector of
Central Excise, Calcutta and Ors. reported in 1994 (74) ELT
22 (SC), Collector of Central Excise vs. Fusebase Eltoto Ltd.
reported in 1993 (67) ELT 30 (SC), and Commissioner of
Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad vs.
Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy (Neutral Citation: