TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 904
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....03". It further observed, ". . . that the claim of the petitioner as alternative argument that homoeo globule is taxable at four per cent is also not acceptable". The petitioner challenged the order dated November 6, 2008, as aforesaid, before a Divisional Bench of the honourable Calcutta High Court. The honourable Calcutta High Court by its order dated December 21, 2009 set aside the order dated November 6, 2008 and remanded the matter back to this Tribunal for fresh hearing to consider the technical aspects involved in the process of manufacturing the disputed item. Both the sides have submitted written notes on their submissions orally made. This Tribunal is required to answer whether the disputed item being manufactured and sold by the petitioner-company is covered by Sl. No. 35A of Schedule A to the VAT Act and hence exempted from payment of tax. The learned advocate, Sri J.A. Khan appearing along with Smt. P. Bardhan and Sri C. Chattopadhyay, advocates, on behalf of the petitioner-company, contends that the disputed item for the last fifty years is being treated as sugar and hence not exigible to tax. Sugar was initially an item falling under the Bengal Finance (Sal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h processes had not been spelt out by the Tribunal and according to the honourable Court such observation was purely on surmise. All points were, however, kept open. The learned advocate details the process of manufacturing of the disputed item which was considered by the honourable Calcutta High Court. The process of manufacturing as detailed by the learned advocate is as below: "Manufacturing process of sugar globules may be shown as following: (i) Grinding of sugar; (ii) Formation of globules; (iii) Drying; (iv) Coating. (i) Grinding of sugar.-In this process, sugar grinds with grinder to fine mesh and further filters through sieve, so that any unwanted material may be sorted out easily. (ii) Formation of globules.-In this process, sugar generally mixes with water and pastes are formed. Granules of sugar are prepared when this paste is rubbed on the surface of sieve. (iii) Drying.-These granules are dried in tray drier to remove/ eliminate moisture of the product. (iv) Coating.-In this process, dried sugar globules kept in coating machine having arrangement of spray driver may be coated to desired size with sugar solution. Quality of the product should be trans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is argued by him that term "sugar" usually refers to sucrose and it is called table sugar or saccharose. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned State Representative that the disputed item cannot be treated as an item falling within Sl. No. 35A of Schedule A to the VAT Act. In absence of any specific entry in any of the Schedules, it was rightly held to be an unspecified item taxable at 12.5 per cent. The question before us is whether the disputed item falls within Sl. No. 35A of Schedule A to the VAT Act which covers "sugar manufactured or made in India, misri and batasa". It is the contention of the petitioner that the disputed item is nothing but sugar and the respondent-authorities for the last fifty years treated the disputed item as an exempted item. On the contrary, it is alleged by the respondent-authorities that this is totally a different commercial commodity other than sugar. While detailing the process of manufacture, learned advocate has argued that only the physical appearance of sugar is changed. The item which comes out remains sugar in a different form and is accepted by the dealers dealing in such item as sugar. The respondent authorities also did not show any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e should not forget here that the items under scanner were "patasa, harda and elachidana" which are generally treated by the common people as sweetening material in everyday life. But the disputed item being manufactured and sold by the petitioner is not used in everyday life as sweetening material. The process of manufacturing as highlighted by the petitioner also does not and cannot change the general perception. We are afraid that even the petitioner would not accept it as sugar in the sense being understood by the common people. Viewing the question from the above angle, we would like to observe that a dealer dealing in sugar would not accept the disputed item as sugar. Neither the consumer would accept the same as sugar. In popular commercial sense, a general merchant dealing in sugar does not ordinarily deal in disputed item which, though made of sugar, would be normally available with the manufacturers like the petitioner. It is equally unlikely that a consumer would ask for the disputed item from the dealers dealing in sugar. In popular sense when someone talks of sugar, disputed item never comes in his mind. The petitioner has also pointed out that no reason was shown by ....