1998 (6) TMI 561 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Application dismissed for non-compliance with manufacturing rules.

Nissan Ferro Cast Ltd. and Another Versus Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Special Cell and Another

The Tribunal dismissed the application, concurring with the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner's findings. The applicant-company was found ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the applicant-company can be said to manufacture rolled bars.2. Whether the applicant-company violated the relevant rules framed under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 by not maintaining separate accounts, serially numbered bills, cash memos, and production and stock registers.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Manufacture of Rolled Bars:The primary question was whether the applicant-company manufactured rolled bars. The Assistant Commissioner held that the company did not manufacture rolled bars in its unit but rather manufactured ingots and got the bars manufactured in other units. The company argued that it conducted finishing activities like sizing, straightening, and coloring in its unit, which should qualify as manufacturing. However, the Tribunal agreed with the authorities that the activities performed by the company did not amount to 'producing, making, extracting or blending' as defined under section 2(17) of the 1994 Act. The Tribunal concluded that the rolled bars were not manufactured by the applicant-company in its own unit, and the finishing work did not change the name, character, or use of the goods.2. Violation of Rules:The Assistant Commissioner found that the applicant-company violated rules 151(2)(a), 151(2)(b), and 151(2)(d) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995. The company did not maintain separate accounts, serially numbered bills, cash memos, delivery notes, or challans for the sales of goods manufactured in its newly set up unit. Additionally, the company failed to maintain separate registers for stock of goods purchased for direct use in manufacture and for stock of manufactured goods. The Tribunal upheld these findings, noting that the company maintained common accounts and registers for both steel ingots and rolled bars, which was a clear violation of the prescribed rules.Conflict with Central Excise Rules:The applicant-company argued that under rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, it was required to maintain a single set of accounts and registers for steel ingots and steel bars. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the Central Excise Rules and the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules operate in separate fields with no overlap. The Tribunal emphasized that compliance with the Central Excise Rules does not exempt the company from adhering to the requirements of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules.Non-production of Stock Registers:The Assistant Commissioner noted that the company did not produce separate stock registers as required under rule 151(2)(d). The company claimed that it maintained such registers according to Central Excise Rules, but the Tribunal found no evidence to support this claim. The Tribunal held that the non-production of separate stock registers justified the Assistant Commissioner's conclusion that the company violated rule 151(2)(d).Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the application, agreeing with the findings of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. The applicant-company was found not to have manufactured rolled bars in its own unit and to have violated the relevant rules by not maintaining separate accounts, bills, and stock registers. The application was dismissed without any order for costs.