Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether rubberised cotton hose pipes and rubberised cotton-cum-synthetic fibre hose pipes produced and sold by the assessee were covered by the definition of cotton fabrics in item No. 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and thereby fell within entry 37 in Schedule I to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969.
Analysis: The products were manufactured from cotton fabric and then subjected to rubberising, that is, coating with rubber. The process of rubberising is a specified process within the definition of manufacture in section 2(f), and the reasoning applicable to the interpretation of item No. 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 applied equally to these products. On the facts found, the first product was wholly made from cotton fabric with less than 40 per cent rubber, and the second contained about 70 per cent cotton content. The Tribunal's view that the goods fell within the scope of cotton fabric was therefore sustained.
Conclusion: The products were correctly held to be cotton fabrics and were exempt under entry 37 in Schedule I to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969.
Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are made from cotton fabric and the relevant processing consists of rubberising, the goods may still fall within cotton fabric for tariff purposes if the statutory definition of manufacture encompasses that process.