TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The questions read as under: 1. Whether the disputed turnover relating to the manufacture and supply of missiles is sale or job work? 2. Whether rejection of D forms in respect of disputed turnovers of Rs. 24,80,000-00 and Rs. 2,47,112-00 is proper and justified or not? 2. The matter relates to the Assessment Year 1993-94 under the CST Act. At the outset, Mr. S. Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the respondent/Assessee, submits that the issue raised in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the assessees own case i.e., State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bharat Dynamics Limited [1997] 106 STC 158 (AP) for the Assessment Years 1971-72 to 1977-78, and the Tribunal had followed th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rks contract exempt from taxation. He would also contend that the very fact that the respondent had obtained C-Forms which are only issued to a dealer for procurement of material which are required in the manufacture of products for sale or for re-sale is a clear indicator that the dealer obtained C-Forms for procuring material to be incorporated in the missiles which are to be sold. If it is to be contended that there are no sales and it is only for the purpose of executing the work contracts these bulk of materials were procured by utilizing C- Forms, the very utilization of C-Forms would amount to misuse and mis-utilisation of C-Forms, which is impermissible in law. It is also further contended that the respondent is billing the Governme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s aspects which have been discussed by the Tribunal, the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the revision. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 5. At the outset, we may state that the scope of consideration of a tax revision case by the High Court, in exercise of powers under Section 22 of the A.P.GST Act as applicable to CST transactions, is limited to the consideration of questions of law that arise from the orders of the Tribunal. The Tribunal being the last fact-finding authority, the facts as found by the Tribunal are required to be the basis for considering the questions of law arising in a particular case. Unless a specific question raising perversity of fact is raised, it is impermissible for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atter of fact, the entire of the manufacturing is done as per the instructions and to meet the requirements of Government of India and, at all times, entire of the raw material etc., are procured and held in trust, for and on behalf of the Government of India. Under the permission granted by the Government of India, for the Government of India certain export sales are also undertaken. The bulk of the components are supplied by the overseas collaborator and also certain parts are procured from identified vendors approved by the Government of India. The Tribunal considered the aspect that, under the very agreement entered into by the Government with the French entity, there is a requirement of transfer of technology and indigenisation of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to a different conclusion, respectfully agreeing with the ratio laid down by earlier judgment, question No.1 is required to be answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Department. So far as question No.2 is concerned, the Tribunal had found that ERDL, Pune is not one of the entity listed in G.O.Ms.No.882 dated 28.12.1988, which fact is not being disputed before us. It is only those specific entities which are listed in G.O.Ms.No.882 dated 28.12.1988 that are prohibited to issue D- Forms. We may also further add that the fact that ERDL, Pune, had issued D-Form for procuring material would go to show that they are eligible and entitled to issue such D-Forms and the D-Forms are validly issued. In that view of the matter, allowing the....