Decided on February 19,1998

Marvel Building Products, Hyderabad B.R. Timber Pannels Appellant


Girija Jagannath, Member (A) - (1.) THESE three appeals are filed by different appellants against the orders of revision passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Abids, Hyderabad, revising the orders of the Commercial Tax Officer, Agapura Circle. As a common issue is involved, the appeals are taken up together for disposal by way of a common order. Particulars of the appeals are as follows: - - All three appellants are manufacturers of panel doors and were assessed on the impugned turnovers by the Commercial Tax Officer treating panel doors as general goods liable at the basic rate of 6 per cent besides additional tax and surcharge. The assessments were revised under Section 20(2) of the APGST Act by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) for the reason that 'panel doors' ought to have been assessed as 'flush doors' falling under entry 114 of the First Schedule to the Act taxable at 9 per cent basic rate. The appellants have now questioned the revision orders. In TA 442/96 and 441/96, appellants have wrongly shown turnovers as disputed, whereas only the rate thereon is disputed.
(2.) THE point to be considered is, whether the impugned turnovers relating to the sale of 'panel doors' are liable to tax as general goods or under entry 114 of the First Schedule to the APGST Act? The Commercial Tax Officer levied tax at 6 per cent basic rate, treating panel doors as 'general goods'. But the revising authority concluded that such assessments were erroneous, that there was no difference between 'flush doors' and 'panel doors' and since 'flush doors' were listed under entry 114 of the First Schedule to the Act, they ought to have been taxed at 9 per cent vide entry 114 of the Act. He also held that entry 114 related to goods made from plywood, particle board, lamine board etc., whether bonded or not with natural or artificial or reconstituted wood agglomerated with natural or artificial resins in sheets, block boards, or 'in any other form' including flush doors and therefore the impugned panel doors were covered by the words "in any other form" contemplated in entry 114 of the First Schedule to the Act. Accordingly, he revised the assessments.
(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant vehemently contended that panel doors were not technically the same as flush doors. Neither were they plywood, particle board, or lamin board 'in any other form' as opined by the revising authority and hence entry 114 was not at all attracted. He contended that the revising authority was in two minds in classifying the panel doors, one hand as flush doors and on the other as plywood particle board/lamin board 'in any other form', apparently showing lack of application of mind. He pleaded that this Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. B.R. Timber Panels, Goshamahal, Hyderabad v. State of Andhra Pradesh in T.A. Nos. 675/92 and 676/92 dated 1st September, 1993 exactly covered the issue and despite being brought to the notice of the revising authority was ignored by him. He pointed out, that a flush door consisted of two sheets of timber between which wooden waste is filled up and the whole is compressed and bonded by machines whereas a panel door is nothing but a sheet of particle board or lamin board which is enclosed in a timber frame consisting of a top rail, a lacak rail and a bottom rail. It was thus different from a flush door both in constitution and in the process of manufacturing. At the same time, it was not synonymous with the unframed sheet of particle board. He pleaded that the issue being already covered in favour of the appellants, the revisions are liable to be set aside.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.