28.01.2013 Views

news round up - Taxmann

news round up - Taxmann

news round up - Taxmann

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

216 Goods & Services Tax Cases - Reports [Vol. 1<br />

trade circles is also required to be examined with reference to the instant<br />

case and examine whether they are understood in common parlance and<br />

in trade circles. Admittedly, the process carried out in extraction of<br />

oleoresin, the reminiscence that would follow are, cut chilly, crushed<br />

chilly and spent chilly and it is sold as a separate commodity and accepted<br />

both in trade and common parlance and it does not lose its identity by<br />

virtue of such extraction process. The originality of such commodity<br />

remains as such. Hence, in view of the same, we are of the view that the<br />

judgment of this Court in Habeeb Proteins would be squarely applicable<br />

to the facts of the present case.<br />

14. Yet another factor which requires to be considered in favour of the<br />

assessee is the subsequent amendment brought about to the Entry No. 89<br />

where under the Legislature in its wisdom has included crushed chilly, cut<br />

chilly and spent chilly by adding the same after the words “dry chillies”.<br />

Hence, we find that the Advance Ruling Authority was in error in holding<br />

that the residuary clause viz. section 4(1)(b) of the Act was applicable to the<br />

facts of this case viz. the commodity in question and the ruling that<br />

the assessee is liable to pay tax at 12.5 per cent for the period 1-4-2005 to<br />

31-3-2006.<br />

15. In view of our discussion made herein above, we hold that crushed<br />

chilly, spent chilly is a spice by itself which can be sold and traded in<br />

common parlance and accordingly, tax leviable would be at the rate of 4<br />

per cent and it comes within Entry No. 61 under the definition of “dry<br />

chillies” and accordingly, we answer the questions of law formulated<br />

herein above in favour of the assessee, against the revenue by holding that<br />

the Advance Ruling Authority was in error.<br />

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed without any order<br />

as to costs.<br />

■■<br />

GOODS & SERVICES TAX CASES ❑ JANUARY 20 - FEBRUARY 4, 2010 ◆ 92<br />

A<br />

B<br />

C<br />

D<br />

E<br />

F<br />

G

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!