TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (8) TMI 926
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in T.A. No. 163 of 1991, relating to the assessment year 1988-89. The assessee had returned a turnover of Rs. 96,480 as being first sales of "hoists". This turnover was assessed by the assessing officer at 15 per cent. On first appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the argument that the goods namely, hoists would fall under the entry "machinery" and held that it was rightly taxed as falling under entry 133 relating to "lifts". He, therefore, confirmed the assessment at 15 per cent. On second appeal the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the goods sold were being used in the engineering industry to move articles from one place to another. Therefore, they came to the conclusion that it cannot be treated as "lift ". ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore, the common parlance theory should be adopted and the court should look for the meaning given in the industry. According to the assessee a lift should be understood as a mechanical contrivance for lifting passengers or goods from a lower place to a higher place and such mechanical contrivance operates only within a fixed spot, up to a fixed height. The goods involved in these cases namely, "hoists" are not meant for such uses. The "hoists" are mainly intended for use in industry as ladders. For instance, they are used for people working at higher places or different levels. They do not have a self-propelling vehicle. They are normally mounted on a trail or they are towed. The assessing authority examined the literature furnished by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eight of the platform to enable the workers to conveniently work on various levels. The Tribunal referred to entry 81 of the First Schedule relating to machinery and held that the "hoists" are properly classifiable only under the entry machinery. The Coimbatore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal also held that the goods are used in engineering industries to move articles from one place to another. Therefore, they held that the goods cannot be treated as "lifts" as described in entry 133 of the First Schedule. 6.. Before us Mr. R. Mahadevan, the learned Government Advocate, argues that going by the use to which the goods are put to, namely, for lifting goods or persons from one place in the industry to another place and at the same time raising....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee that "hoists" were never understood as "lifts" used in building. The discussion of the use of the article "hoists" clearly shows that they are used in industries for lifting workers and goods from one place to another in an industry and to raise them to various levels for convenient working and for carting goods from one place to another and also to raise them to various heights. This being the understanding in common parlance, we do not agree with the assessing authority and the first appellate authority that "hoists" are also included in the entry relating to "lifts". The argument that lifts are normally operated within a fixed spot and up to fixed heights and that a propelling machinery is an integral part of the lift is....