TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (1) TMI 299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1987. In all these cases, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, relying upon the Bench decision in State of Kerala v. Sivachandradasa [1987] 65 STC 379 (Ker) came to the conclusion that fuses sold under the Explosives Act will come within the scope of entry 18/157 of the First Schedule. In this batch of revisions, Mr. Dandapani argues that his client is a licensee both under the Arms Act and the Explosives Act who dealt with commodities as per the licences under the two Acts. Similarly, Mr. Subramaniam contends that his clients are only dealers and licensees under the Explosives Act and they do not deal with any article under the licences issued under the Arms Act. It is contended by both the learned counsel that a Division Bench of this Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es for such charges, (v) fuses and friction tubes, (vi) parts of, and machinery for, manufacturing ammunition, and (vii) such ingredients of ammunition as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf;" In this definition of "ammunition", the most important words are ammunition for any fire-arm and includes fuses and friction tubes. What is contemplated by that definition is "fuses" which are used for the ammunition of fire-arms. In this batch of cases, we are concerned with "fuses" which are used for the purpose of quarrying, drilling and blasting rocks. None of these "fuses" can be used, nor is there any plea that they were ever used for any other purpose. They cannot be used for any fire-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Excise v. Krishna Carbon Paper Co. [1989] 72 STC 280; (1989) 1 SCC 150. The aforesaid decisions are binding on us and we should give effect to them. This particular principle enunciated long ago by the Supreme Court of India and also by a Full Bench and Division Bench of this Court, was not taken into account or rather ignored by the subsequent Division Bench which pronounced the judgment in Sivachandradasa's case [1987] 65 STC 379. With great respect to that Bench, we find that the procedure adopted by the Division Bench in the latter decision is not in accordance with the earlier binding decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court. It should also be remembered that in the latter Bench decision, the dealer is a licensee under the A....