TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Classification of Roasted Dry Fruits under DVAT Act Entry 81 upheld on appeal</h1> <h3>M/s. KBB Nuts Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Value Added Tax</h3> M/s. KBB Nuts Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Value Added Tax - TMI Issues Involved:1. Classification of Roasted Dry Fruits under DVAT Act, 2004.2. Definition and implications of 'manufacture' under the DVAT Act.3. Legislative intent and interpretation of Schedule entries.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Roasted Dry Fruits under DVAT Act, 2004:The primary issue was whether roasted dry fruits fall under entry No. 81 of Schedule III of the DVAT Act, 2004. The appellant, a registered dealer, contended that roasted dry fruits should be classified under entry No. 81 of Schedule III, which includes 'kirana items' such as dry fruits. The revenue argued that roasted dry fruits, being processed, should be classified as snacks/namkeen and not as kirana items. The Commissioner, VAT, rejected the appellant's submission, stating that roasted dry fruits are distinguishable from dry fruits and should be considered an unspecified item taxable at 12.50%. The VAT Tribunal upheld this determination, classifying roasted dry fruits under the residuary entry, not as kirana items.2. Definition and Implications of 'Manufacture' under the DVAT Act:The appellant argued that roasting and salting do not constitute 'manufacture' as they do not transform the essential character of the dry fruits. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool, which held that neither roasting nor salting results in the creation of a new article. The revenue countered that under Section 2 (ra) of the DVAT Act, all manner of processing, including roasting and salting, falls within the definition of 'manufacture.' The Tribunal, however, noted that the essential nature of the article does not change and thus does not amount to manufacturing. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills clarified that 'manufacture' implies the creation of a new and distinct article, which does not apply to roasted dry fruits.3. Legislative Intent and Interpretation of Schedule Entries:The Tribunal considered the legislative intent behind the entries in the DVAT Act schedules. Entry No. 81 of Schedule III includes 'kirana items' such as dry fruits. The Tribunal noted that the legislature specifically mentioned 'fried and roasted grams' in Entry 31, indicating awareness of such processes. However, the Tribunal concluded that this awareness does not imply that roasted dry fruits should be excluded from Entry 81. The Supreme Court in Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India emphasized that an article should not be consigned to a residuary clause if it reasonably fits an enumerated item. Thus, the Tribunal held that roasted dry fruits should be classified under Entry 81 of Schedule III as kirana items, as roasting or salting does not transform them into a new article.Conclusion:The Court concluded that roasted dry fruits retain their essential character and do not undergo a manufacturing process that transforms them into a new article. Therefore, they should be classified under Entry 81 of Schedule III of the DVAT Act as kirana items. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, and the goods were held to be classifiable under Entry 81, not as an unspecified item taxable at a higher rate.
TaxTMI 