Industrial input classification for powder coating material follows principal resin content and tariff-aligned notification interpretation.

Industrial input classification under the Karnataka VAT notification turned on whether powder coating material fell within Chapter Heading 3907, which covered epoxide and polyester resins in primary forms, rather than the residuary entry. The analysis applied the notification's interpretation rule aligned with Central Excise classification, meaning goods matching the tariff description were covered by that heading. Because the product was predominantly epoxy or polyester resin and the additives were only ancillary, classification had to follow the principal constituent. The State authorities were said to lack scope for a contrary reclassification where the excise tariff classification already fitted the notified entry.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's powder coating material was classifiable as an industrial input under Entry 133 of the notification issued under Entry 51 of the Third Schedule to the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, or whether it fell under the residuary entry attracting tax at a higher rate.

Analysis: The notification governing industrial inputs incorporated the rules of interpretation applicable under the Central Excise regime, and where the description in the notification matched the corresponding Central Excise tariff description, all commodities covered by that tariff heading were included. The goods in question fell under Chapter Heading 3907, which covered epoxide and polyester resins in primary forms. The product was found to be predominantly composed of epoxy resin or polyester resin, with additives being merely ancillary. On that basis, the classification had to follow the principal constituent, and the State authorities could not independently reclassify the goods contrary to the tariff classification accepted under the excise heading. The earlier decision relied on by the Revenue was distinguished because the product there was classified under a different tariff heading not covered by the notification.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable as industrial inputs under the notification, and not under the residuary entry; the contrary re-assessment and appellate orders were erroneous and liable to be set aside.

---