Bharati Sapru, J. - (1.) THE present revision has been filed by the assessee against an order of the Tribunal dated March 15, 2004 for the assessment year 1998 -99 (Central) by which the Tribunal has imposed an amount of Rs. 3,92,000 as Central sales tax on the assessee. The questions of law sought to be answered are as under: (1) Whether only can body having been fabricated by Sahibabad unit and the same alone having been transferred from Sahibabad to Murthal where rest of manufacturing unit of tin container was completed and thereafter it was sold by Murthal unit and hence the Tribunal was not justified in treating stock transfer of Sahibabad of semi fabricated tin containers. (2) Whether admittedly the tin container is not complete unless can body is fitted with the bottom assembly as well as top lid assembly and admittedly this process having been completed by Murthal unit in the State of Haryana where bottom manufactured tin container was completed and hence sale of tin container at Murthal unit cannot be treated as inter -State sale of tin container by Sahibabad unit. Even assuming without admitting that sale of tin container by Murthal unit after completing fabrication of tin container at Murthal be treated as inter -State sale, the assessing authority as well as the Tribunal was not justified in treating the entire stock transfer made from Sahibabad as inter -State sale even the controversy should involve before the assessing authority was confined to the quantity mentioned in the show -cause notice. (3) Whether in view of the second proviso of rule 41(7) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948 read with section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and in view of various decisions of this honourable court, the Tribunal was justified in confirming entire stock transfer of semi -fabricated tin container as inter -State transaction? (4) Whether the Tribunal was justified in completely overlooking the points referred to in the written argument and also the copy of judgments filed along with written argument for the proposition that neither the assessing authority nor the appellate authority can go beyond the question of the controversy is raised in the show -cause notice? (5) Whether in view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes [ : 1970] 26 STC 354 (SC) (last two paragraphs) even if stock transfer were to be treated as inter -State sale, it was incumbent upon the assessing authority as well as the Tribunal to examine each and every point instead of going in casual manner? (6) Whether in any view of the matter the order passed by the assessing authority as well as the Tribunal treating the stock transfer of semi -fabricated body/part of tin container as inter -State sale? The facts of the case are that the revisionist is a manufacturer of tin caps. The registered office of the assessee is at Delhi and the assessee has a factory at Industrial Area, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, which is in the State of U.P. The assessee also has another manufacturing unit at Murthal in the State of Haryana and third unit at Barotiwala District Solan in the State of Himachal Pradesh.
(2.) THE assessee is engaged in the manufacture of tin caps through the process of slitting, printing, lacquering, body blank slitting, body fabrication, ring manufacturing, lid manufacturing, top assembly and bottom assembly. It is the case of the assessee that for the assessment year 1998 -99, it has received certain job -work from Murthal unit where the can body was fabricated at Sahibabad, which was thereafter transported to Murthal and completed over there. The dispute arose with regard to this.
(3.) THE assessee received a show -cause notice from the Department by which the Department alleged that in fact the assessee had indulged in a Central sales by sending goods from Sahibabad to Murthal vice -versa.;