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 air product oxygen was the same goods as industrial oxygen for the purpose of exemption under section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.
Analysis: The question turned on whether the two products were commercially the same or different. The Court held that difference in raw material, manufacturing process, machinery used, or higher purity did not by itself make the products different goods. Both products were oxygen and were known commercially as oxygen; the mere fact that air product oxygen could also be used for deep welding or medical purposes did not establish a distinct commercial identity. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that the goods were commercially the same was treated as a factual finding supported by material and not shown to be erroneous.
Conclusion: Air product oxygen was held to be the same goods as industrial oxygen and the restriction under section 4-A(5)(d) was sustained.
Final Conclusion: The revision failed and the Tribunal's view denying separate treatment to air product oxygen was upheld, leaving the assessee without relief.
Ratio Decidendi: For exemption under section 4-A, the decisive test is whether the products are commercially the same or different; mere differences in raw material, process, machinery, or quality do not create separate goods when the products remain commercially identified as the same commodity.