Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful)

TaxTMI AI Drafter workflow from input facts to final legal draft Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1994 (12) TMI 336

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 27th September, 1993, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Agra, whereby it allowed the dealer's appeal and held that Sutli i. e. Jute Twine was yarn and was taxable under item-55 of the notification dated 7th September, 1981, and not as jute and Hemp goods under item-24 of the said notification. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel for the dealer-respondent. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....axable under item-55 of the said notification. 4. Learned Standing Counsel contended that sutli was mainly used as a string for tying things or sewing bags etc. and was, therefore, not yarn. He placed reliance on my judgment in M/s. Ganga Devi Agencies, Agra v. C. S. T., 1994 UPTC 582, in which it was held that Nylon Monofilament used in the manufacture of shaving brushes was not yarn. It was o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... spun strand. These are the findings of fact and the learned Standing Counsel placed no material before me to show that these findings are not based on any cogent material. Therefore, the Tribunal's finding that Sutli is a yarn is essentially a finding of fact. 5. The next question that arises is whether inspire of Sutli being a yarn it should be taxed under item-24 as it was admittedly mad....