TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (2) TMI 521
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onclusion that the duplex board and the cardboard are the same commodities and are taxable at first stage? 2.. The assessee was running a printing press and also manufactured cardboard packing cases, boxes and cartons. During the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee had made sales of cardboard packing cases at Rs. 2,18,943. The assessee claimed that those sales were made to registered dealers and were, therefore, not to be subjected to tax at the hands of the assessee. The assessee had collected forms S.T. 15-A from the purchasing dealers who were registered dealers under the Act. The Assessing Authority, however, took the view that cardboard cases, boxes and cartons, manufactured and sold by the assessee, were the items specified at se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es not find support from any material on record. It has, however, been admitted that cardboard was polished on both sides while the duplex board was polished on one side only. There was no other difference. It is, therefore apparent that basically and primarily both cardboard and duplex board, are the same except for the minor difference that one is polished on both sides and the other is polished on one side only. However, that would not make them different commodities. The assessee's second plea was that the items manufactured by him were sold as packing materials and were, therefore, different from cardboard. Since the items, manufactured by the assessee, were different from cardboard, test as to what the final product was called in c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chandamama Printing Press Hyderabad Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1988] 71 STC 92, whether labels and wrappers were "paper" within the meaning of entry 143 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. It was held that the said entry dealt with all kinds of paper and the accent was on "paper". But where wrapping paper was used to bring into existence different goods to wit labels and wrappers which could not be used generally as wrapping paper but could be used only as a label or wrapper for particular goods, it ceased to be wrapping paper. Here, it was the use of the item which became the determining factor. 8.. In another case, i.e., State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gurun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithin the ambit of excepted goods mentioned in entry 17 of Schedule "A" to the Act and, therefore, are liable to sales tax at the rate of 10 per cent. 11.. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Macneill and Barry Ltd., Kanpur [1986] 61 STC 76; AIR 1986 SC 386, while examining the taxability on ammonia paper and ferro paper, observed that those papers did not fall within the entry "paper other than hand-made paper" and were liable to be taxed as unclassified goods. Shri B.K. Jhingan, learned counsel for the assessee, drawing strength from the aforesaid decision, has argued that, in the case in hand also, the packing materials manufactured by the assessee were different from "cardboard" or "duplex board" and, therefore, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s a result of some operation or work'. The expression 'bone products', therefore, merely means anything produced or obtained from bones. Whether such derivation is by a simple physical process or by a chemical reaction would seem to make no difference to the end-product. Buttermilk, for instance, does not cease to be a milk product merely because a chemical process is involved in the transformation. The ossein and gelatine manufactured by the respondent can, without straining the expression used in the notification, be described as bone products." 14.. The assessee's plea that cardboards and duplex boards were altogether different items, cannot be accepted because it has already been found that both are basically and primarily same items....