TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (11) TMI 872
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2009 decided on February 11, 2010, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law: "(A) Whether the honourable Tribunal was legally justified in classifying the battery charges under Schedule F (unclassified goods taxable at 12.5 per cent), when battery chargers are sold in a package along with cellular telephones affixed with MRP and the cost of the battery charger is insignificant in comparison to the price of cellular telephones? (B) Whether entry 60(6)(g) of Schedule B (January 25, 2006 and onwards)-'cellular telephone 8525.20.17' will include battery chargers when supplied along with cell phones in a composite package? (C) Whether the honourable Tribunal was legally justified in classifying battery chargers ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or a person/dealer to maintain accounts showing sale record separately of goods sold at different tax rates. Under these circumstances, the Assessing Authority had rightly charged differential amount of tax at 8.5 per cent, i.e., 12.5 per cent minus four per cent on the value of the battery chargers, sold during the respective years." We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that battery charger was sold in a composite package along with cell phone and compared to the price of cell phone, cost of battery charger was insignificant. The price of battery chargers was included in the sale price of the cell phones. Being part of composite package, the battery chargers could not be taxed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ger was not integral part of the cell phone and was an accessory. Cell phone could be used even without charger. In such a situation, mere fact that the chargers were sold in a composite package along with cell phone did not make any exclude to the taxability of charger at a higher separate rate of tax. He further submits that distinction has to be drawn in a "part of goods" and "accessories" which could be independently sold and used. He placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kores (India) Ltd. [1977] 39 STC 8 (SC). Holding that carbon paper and ribbon were accessories of typewriter and not part thereof. 2. I.A.S. Products v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Uttarakhand at Dehradun [2010] 29 VS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entry in question cannot be read as excluding battery charger which is necessary for use of the cell phone. The judgments relied on behalf of the Revenue are distinguishable. In Kores (India) Ltd. case [1977] 39 STC 8 (SC) the question was whether turnover of ribbon could be subjected to tax at rate prescribed for typewriter as part thereof, there is nothing to show that the ribbon and carbon papers were sold without extra charges along with the typewriter. The plea of the assessee was that the items were sold separately and that carbon papers and ribbon were taxable at lower rate. The Revenue wanted to assess the carbon papers, ribbon and other items at the same rate at which typewriter was taxed which plea was rejected by the honour....