Stone crushing machine classification turns on effective capacity, so the higher compounded tax slab applied despite lesser width.

The classification of a stone crushing machine under the higher compounded tax slab was held to depend on the machine's effective size and production capacity, rather than a narrow literal comparison of every dimensional detail. Where the machine's length exceeded the threshold for the higher category, a lesser width did not prevent classification in that slab because the statutory scheme linked tax liability to output capacity. The machine was therefore properly assessed under the higher compounded rate, and the clarification sustaining the demand was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's stone crushing machine, having length of 55 cm and width of 22.5 cm, fell under the higher compounded tax category under section 8(b) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, notwithstanding the lesser width compared with the dimensional description in that category.

Analysis: The rate structure for crushing machines was based on the size of the machine and was intended to correlate tax liability with production capacity. The classification showed that the length of the machine was the significant factor, while the width remained substantially similar across categories. Since the appellant's machine exceeded the length threshold for the higher slab, the minor variation in width did not alter its classification. The scheme of the provision indicated that the tax payable was proportionate to the volume and quantity of output, and the machine was therefore to be assessed with reference to its effective capacity rather than a narrow literal reading of the width specification.

Conclusion: The appellant's machine was correctly classified under the higher compounded rate category, and the clarification sustaining the demand was proper.

---