Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1990 (6) TMI 202

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....per arm blades for motor vehicles. From out of the stainless steel so allotted, the appellant manufactured stainless steel strips. The manufactured articles, viz., stainless steel strips were subsequently sold to Tvl. Tamarai Steel House. Initially, the sales of these stainless steel strips were assessed to tax at 8 per cent, for the two assessment years in question, namely, 1974-75 and 1975-76, treating them as falling under item 109 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Subsequently, on the basis of the report of the Intelligence wing, the assessments on this part of the turnovers were revised, and the turnovers were brought to tax at 13 per cent treating the goods as component parts of automobiles falling under i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the assessee. 4.. Mr. Venkataraman, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Board of Revenue went wrong in holding that the articles sold by the appellant will fall under item 3 of the First Schedule to the Act, and as such exigible to tax at 13 per cent. According to the learned counsel, the Board of Revenue erred in taking into account the order of the allotment made by the Director of Industries. The stainless steel strips sold by the appellant cannot at all be used straightway as wiper blades to treat them as component part of the automobile. According to learned counsel, the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the reasons given by him in support of that view are unassailable, and the view taken by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ip of metal from out of which a wiper can be made by an elaborate process after adding thereto other articles cannot be called a motor part. In the form in which it has been marketed, it cannot be sold as an auto part. It is only a part from which an auto part can be processed. Just as bolts and nuts which are used for the manufacture of a car cannot be treated as auto parts, this cannot be treated as auto part. The cost of each strip ranges at Re. 1.60 and Re. 1.80 each and wiper arm, as part of a motor vehicle can never be imagined to be sold at this low price. The observation in the case of Shadi Cycle Industries [1971] 27 STC 56 (All.) and Kishindas Agencies [1974] 33 STC 65 (Mys) lend support to this view. I, therefore, hold that the ....