RAMA EPS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Rama Eps Products Private Limited
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
J. Shyam Sundar Rao, Chairman -
(1.) THIS is an appeal filed against the Revisional orders of Deputy Commissioner (CT), Charminar Division, Hyderabad dated 11 -7 -2005. The appellant is M/s. Sri Rama E.P.S. Products Private Limited, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad. It is on the rolls of Commercial Tax Officer, Malakpet Circle, Hyderabad. The Commercial Tax Officer passed final assessment order for the year 2002 -2003 on 10 -3 -2004.
(2.) THE Deputy Commissioner (CT), Charminar Division, Hyderabad by virtue of powers under Section 20(2) of the APGST Act having observed that the assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, issued pre -revision show cause notice, calling for the objections of the assessee, proposing to levy tax at 12% treating the Thermocole sheets as general goods falling under Seventh Schedule. The assessee contended that being manufacturer of expandable polystyrene foam sheets and different types of moulds, thermocole sheets falls under the Entry 19(iv) of First Schedule leviable to tax at 4% as all types of containers not mentioned above. However, the Deputy Commissioner rejected their claim and subjected the entire turnover of Thermocole sheets to tax at 12%. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred. In the appeal grounds, it has been contended by the appellant that Rs. 76,89,669/ - represents first sales of thermocole moulds effected by the appellant during the year. The assessing authority subjected the sales of thermocole moulds at 4%, treating the same as packing material at 4% in terms of Entry 19 of the First Schedule to the APGST Act, 1957. However, the Revisional Authority, relying on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Mettur Beardsell Limited reported in, 9 APSTJ 89 construed the same as general goods and subjected the same to tax at 12%. The Revisional Authority without appreciating and understanding the nature of the product relied on the above decision, which is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. The Revisional Authority totally misdirected himself by relying on the above decision. The appellant is a manufacturer of both thermocole sheets as well as thermocole moulds. In respect of thermocole sheets, the appellant paid the tax @ 12%, thereby treating them as general goods. The decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court relied on by the Revisional Authority is with regard to classification of thermocole and metaplast. The Hon'ble High Court held that thermocole cannot be brought within the expression "refrigeration material" i.e., polystyrene foam within the meaning of Entry 2 of the First Schedule to the APGST Act. Hence, the above judgment squarely applies to the first sales of thermocole sheets effected by the appellant, which is not in dispute. The dispute is with regard to rate of tax on thermocole moulds effected by the appellant. The thermocole moulds manufactured by the appellant are as per the specifications given by the customers for packing their products in the thermocole moulds manufactured by the appellant on ceiling fans, TVs etc. Entry 19, Clause (i) of first schedule embraces all types of bottles of all types, whether made of glass, plastic or any fibre or any other material. The appellant relies on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Chennupati Traders reported in, (1989) 9 APSTJ 17, wherein the High Court held that egg trays are containers fall under Entry 19 of the First Schedule as containers but not as general goods. The High Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Pulp 'N' Pack Private Limited reported in : 20 APSTJ 48 held that paper pulp egg trays used for carrying eggs are classifiable as containers covered by Entry 19 of the First Schedule to the APGST Act. The Revisional Authority rejected the contention of the appellant regarding set off of tax granted to it by the assessing authority on a turnover of Rs. 2,99,940/ - without assigning any reasons.
(3.) AT the time of hearing, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that they paid tax @ 12% for the Thermocole Sheets treating them as general goods. But as they are manufacturing Thermocole Moulds as per the specifications of the customers, they should be treated as containers falling under Entry 19 of the First Schedule exigible to tax at 4% only. It is also contended that the Revisional Authority disallowed the set off of tax though they got final eligibility certificate for Thermocole moulds.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.