1991 (2) TMI 376

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....artment. His case, however, was that the timber purchased by him was eucalyptus firewood which was exempted from tax as per Notification No. II (1) Rev 386 (g)/74, dated March 4,1974. We however, in the instant case, need not go into the entire history of the case. First we find the Tribunal has followed the law as stated by this Court in more than one case, i.e., Malayalee Stores v. State of Tamil Nadu [1983] 52 STC 3 and P.R. Lakshmi v. State of Tamil Nadu [1983] 52 STC 5. A Division Bench of this Court in the former case has stated thus: "We are satisfied that eucalyptus is not firewood. Its sale is not, therefore, exempt under the notification. The sale of eucalyptus in this case has been actually charged in this assessment at the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the goods in each case showed that what was sold was not firewood or fuel wood. The specifications showed that the blue-gum eucalyptus must be split to size and debarked. What the purchaser in each case obviously desired was that the eucalyptus should serve the intended purpose, namely, to be used in the manufacture of rayon or other kind of man-made fibre. This applied to wattle wood as well. That the goods sold were firewood or fuel wood must have been farthest from the thoughts of both the parties. Apart from the particular specifications in the sale agreement to which we have referred, we think we must have regard for the colloquy of commerce and the common vocabulary of the market for distinguishing between firewood and other ki....