Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) These three revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner-revenue against the common order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Board, Ajmer dated 30.8.1997 whereby the Tax Board upholding the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and rejecting the appeals filed by the revenue held that penalty under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short the Act') could not be imposed upon the respondent assessee for the alleged mis-use of declaration in Form 'C' prescribed under Section 8(3)(b) of the said Act for the purchase of iron and steel for the use in plant-and machinery in different departments for production of cement by the respondent assessee.
(2.) The case of the respondent assessee before the authorities below was that the said iron and steel purchased on concessional rate of 4% against declaration Form 'C' for the years 1989-90 and 1990-91 was used for erection, repairs and maintenance works of Lime Stone, Crusher, Hopper, Conveyors, Raw Mills, Coal Mills, Crane Gaited, Cline Feed, Pre-heater Cyloz, and 1 Cement Mills etc. and that the assessee was entitled to purchase these goods at the concessional rate of 4% in accordance with Rule 13 read with Section 8(3)(b) of the Act as these goods were used by the assessee 'in the manufacture or processing of goods.'
(3.) Mr. Vinay Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the revenue, has urged 2 that on a strict interpretation of Rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration & Turnover) Rules, 1957 (for short 'the Rules'), the iron and steel purchased by the respondent assessee cannot be said to be the goods intended for use by the assessee either as raw materials, processing materials, plant & machinery,, equipment, tools, stores, spare parts, accessories, fuel or 2 lubricants, in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale, since the respondent assessee is manufacturing cement and, therefore, these goods could not be purchased at concessional rate against declaration in Form 'C', therefore, imposition of the penalty under Section 10A of the Act was justified. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. 3 Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur and Another, (1965) 16 STC 563 (SC) . He also relied upon two more judgments, namely, (2000) 125 STC 216 (Allah.) and (1992) 85 STC 42 (Orissa).;