2009 (4) TMI 428

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....KESHWAR SINGH PANTA JJ. R. Nedumaran for the respondents.   S. Balaji, N.C. Mohan, Ms. Madhusmita Bora and K.V. Vijayakumar for the appellant.   --------------------------------------------------   The judgment of the court was delivered by   DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.-Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fferent view was taken. Both these cases are cases in which similar claims were made that though the assessee had purchased parts required to be put together to form a wet grinder, whatsoever has been sold by the assessee were not wet grinders but parts thereof. In the first case the High Court accepted the finding of the Tribunal that what had been sold were parts of the wet grinder. In the la....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....osition of penalty. Accordingly the writ petitions were dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court should have compared the factual scenario and should have held that the decision in Suguna's case [1991] 81 STC 33 (Mad) is applicable to the facts of the case. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of the High Court.....