TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (3) TMI 732
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 'G' (HSR type)". Though the word "cement " is used as part of the name of this chemical, it has no connection or similarity whatsoever with the ordinary cement, which is used in constructions. The oil well cement is not useful to anybody, except for the companies like ONGC, involved in drilling of oil wells. The petitioners are importing this from Tamil Nadu from a manufacturer. It is contended that in terms of section 3 of the Act, tax can be levied on entry of the notified goods into any local area of Andhra Pradesh, for sale or consumption. The goods notified on May 3, 2001 were-(1) high speed diesel oil (2) LDO, (3) Furnace Oil (4) Cement. The rate of tax for cement was 16 per cent. In the year 2002, by G.O. Ms. No. 552, dated September 12, 2002 published on September 23, 2002, oil well cement had been notified and tax was levied at 4 per cent. Since oil well cement was notified for the first time by G.O. Ms. No. 552, it is contended that prior to that date, i.e., September 23, 2002 no tax was payable on import of oil well cement. But the Commercial Tax Officer, Rajahmundry, passed a provisional assessment order, dated April 12, 2002 assessing the petitioner under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be gone into as it is the charging section. It reads as under: "3. Levy and collection of tax.-(1)(a) There shall be levied and collected a tax on the entry of the notified goods into any local area for sale, consumption or use therein. The goods and the rates at which, the same shall be subjected to tax shall be notified by the Government. The tax shall be on the value of the goods as defined in clause (n) of sub-section (1) of section 2 and different rates may be prescribed for different goods or different classes of goods or different categories of persons in the local area; (b) the tax shall be payable by the importer in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed; (c) the rate of tax to be notified by the Government in respect of any commodity shall not exceed the rate specified for that commodity under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Act VI of 1957) or the notifications issued thereunder: Provided that the tax payable by the importer under this Act shall be reduced by the amount of tax paid, if any, under the law relating to general sales tax in force in the Union Territory or State, in which the goods are purchased . . . . ". ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition . . . (i) Sulphur Trioxide % 3.00 Maximum Sulphuric anhydride 2.5 % maximum (ii) Loss in ignition % 3.00 Maximum 4.0 % maximum (iii) Insoluble residue % 0.75% maximum 4.0 % maximum (iv) Magnesium oxide % 6.00 Maximum Magnesia 6.0 % maximum (v) Tricalcium silicate % 48.00 min 65.00 max . . . (vi) Tetra calcium aluminoferrite + twice the tricalcium aluminate % 24.00 max . . . 4. Physical properties: (i) Free water content 5.90 max . . . (ii) Compression strength 8 hrs. curing time at atmos. pressure and Compressive strength: Units requirement 3 days Mpa 27 Max 7 days Mpa 37 Max 28 days Mpa 53 Max. (a) 52 Deg. Centigrade pressure 5160 PSI raised in 28 minutes (Sec. No. 5 API spec.10) Minute 90 minimum 120 maximum (b) Max consistency at 15030 minutes string. Bc 20 Maxm 5. Specific surface M2/kg . . . 225 min. 6. Soundness ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e dealing in them in their commercial sense . . ." (3) Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India [1976] 2 SCC 241. The Supreme Court held: "It is well-established that in interpreting the meaning of words in a taxing statute, the acceptation of a particular word by the trade and its popular meaning should commend itself to the authority." The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that all these judgments were considered recently by the Supreme Court in a similar case reported in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2006] 144 STC 95; [2004] 1 DT (NRC) 19; [2004] 2 RC 958. The controversy in this case was, whether refractory cement was cement so as to attract liability of export tax. After considering the composition and the uses of refractory cement, the court came to the conclusion that refractory cement was different than ordinary portland cement, but having noted the judgments referred to above and also having noted the law laid down by Lord Esher in Unwin v. Hanson [1891] 2 QB 115, it concluded by saying, "Therefore, it has to be understood in the same way as understood in common parlance". The paragraph it quoted from Esher Bench is reproduced ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tantiate this finding further, some of the correspondence in this connection may have to be referred to. One of the communications placed before us along with the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, is a communication written by Sri N. Ramesh Kumar, IAS, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, to the Principal Secretary to the Government. It appears that a representation had been made before him against levy of tax at 4 per cent after G.O. Ms. No. 552 had been issued. While forwarding the representation to the Government, the Commissioner had stated: "It is true that this special category of cement is exclusively purchased by only ONGC. There is no manufacturer of this cement in A.P. The original intention is to levy entry tax only in respect of cement, ordinarily used in the construction activity. It was not intended to tax this special type of cement used in offshore oil rigs. In view of the assistance rendered by ONGC for developing various bridges in the State and this being special category of cement with an exclusive use, I am to request the Government to kindly exempt oil well cement class 'G' (HSR type) from the levy of entry tax under the A.P. ....