STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. J J BROTHERS
LAWS(ST)-1998-8-1
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Decided on August 05,1998

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE only point raised in this tax revision case filed by the Revenue is whether the leather and rubber belting purchased by the petitioner is taxable as machinery falling under item of entry 81 of the First Schedule or whether the same could be dealt with under item 116 so far as leather products are concerned and item 126 so far as rubber products are concerned. Both the assessing authority and the appellate authority held that the leather belting should be taxed under item 116 and the rubber belting should be taxed under item 126. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal reversing the said view of the lower authorities has held as follows : "Regarding rate of tax in respect of rubber goods and leather goods, it is seen that the learned authorised representative has contended that it is taxable only at 6 per cent and not at 9 per cent since it falls under item 81 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 as machinery whereas the learned Additional State Representative has contended that it will not fall under item 81 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 under the category of 'machinery'. Hence it will fall in the respective heads as rubber and leather. It is seen from the manufacturing process and the items utilised by the appellants in the textile machinery, we are of the opinion, that these leather belts and rubber belts are nothing but machinery parts which fall under item 81 of the First Schedule. This cannot be treated as rubber goods or leather goods as shown elsewhere in the First Schedule. Therefore, we hold that the leather and rubber belts fall under item 81 of the First Schedule taxable at 6 per cent."
(2.) WE have examined the relevant entries and we concur with the view expressed by the Appellate Tribunal. This is because item 81 of the First Schedule relates not only to machinery but also to parts and accessories of such machinery and even tools used in such machineries. In the objections filed, the assessee has clearly stated that the leather belting is used as machinery parts in the textile factories. Similarly in respect of the rubber belting, it is stated that they are used as machinery parts in the textile factories. If we refer to item 116 we find it relates to goods other than footwear made wholly or principally of leather. Similarly, if we turn to item 126, it relates to rubber, latex compound and rubber products including transmission, conveyor or elevator "belts or beltings".
(3.) THE word conveyor as found in the Oxford Dictionary means "a belt which carries material and articles in a factory". In other words a conveyor belt is normally used for transporting articles and materials which are used in factories. But a rubber belt used in a machinery cannot be brought under a conveyor belt. If we exclude items Nos. 116 and 126, we have to apply only the item 81 of the First Schedule. This tax case therefore fails and is dismissed. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 5th day of August, 1998.;


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