Specific invoice description governs classification of copper wire, defeating claim to concessional power-equipment tax treatment.

Copper wire described in the invoice as hard drawn for telegraphs and telephones, and matching the stated specification, was classified by that specific description rather than by a general predominant-use inference. The Rajasthan High Court held that there was no basis to treat the goods as plants, equipment and accessories for generation or distribution of electric power, especially where the assessee produced no material showing that wire of that specification was used for electricity transmission. The goods therefore fell within sound transmitting equipment under the higher-tax notification and not within the concessional power-equipment notification, so the concessional rate claim failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether copper wire sold as wire for telegraphs and telephones, conforming to the stated specifications in the invoice, fell within sound transmitting equipment taxable at 10 per cent under Notification No. F. 5(40) FD/RNT/63-13 dated March 2, 1963, or within plants, equipment and accessories required for generation or distribution of electric power taxable at 3 per cent under Notification No. F. 5(110) FD/RT/63 dated July 15, 1963.

Analysis: The decisive factor was the specific description in the invoice that the wire was hard drawn for telegraphs and telephones and conformed to the stated specification. In that setting, the Court held that there was no occasion to apply the predominant or ordinary use test to treat the goods as equipment required for generation or distribution of electric power. The assessee also failed to produce material showing that wire of that specification was used for transmission of electricity. On those facts, the goods answered the description of sound transmitting equipment rather than electrical power equipment.

Conclusion: The copper wire was held to be covered by Notification No. F. 5(40) FD/RNT/63-13 dated March 2, 1963, and not covered by Notification No. F. 5(110) FD/RT/63 dated July 15, 1963.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee and the concessional rate claim failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the invoice and proved facts specifically identify the goods by their stated use, classification must follow that specific description and not a general inference of predominant use for another purpose.

---