AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 468
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed by the Tribunal where by the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order has allowed the appeals and has issued direction as contained in the operative portion of the order. 3. The revenue has referred the petitions by raising two questions of law. But in our view second question is only incidental and first question reads as under: "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the piston ring manufactured and sold by the appellant dealer as declared goods falling under Section 14(iv)(viii) on CST Act 1956 and Exigible Tax in Section 4(1)(b)(i) of KVAT Act 2003?" 4. We have heard Mr. Vedamurthy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner-revenue. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct. The Tribunal did take note of the aforesaid decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Tribunal thereafter also referred to another decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Dewan Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. reported at AIR 1996 SC 2029: (1996) 102 STC 67 (SC) for interpretation of the entry providing for the wheels, holding that rims of cycles are included in the entry providing for wheels and ultimately the Tribunal has allowed the appeals. 8. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioner-revenue was that `piston rings' are not being made as it is from iron but they are processed after the rings are made and specifically manufactured for use as `piston rings' and once in commercial p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnataka Sales Tax Act. Further by use of iron for fabrication, a separate product is being manufactured such as doors, window frames, grills etc. Whereas in the present case piston rings are iron rings in the same shape. Hence, said decision would not be of any help to the petitioner- revenue more particularly because the issue stands already covered by a decision of not only Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of respondent [State of Punjab and Haryana Vs M/s. Federal Mogul Goetze Ltd., reported at 2011 (267) ELT 602 (P & H)], but also stands covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the ca se of M/s. Dewan Enterprises supra. 10. We may record the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s.Dewan Enterprises supra, High Court o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e words "wheel sets" in the said entry and a rim which is admittedly a part of a wheel set would fall in the said entry. 6. In ASHOK TYRES CASE (1988 (68) STC 123) (SUPRA), this very entry came up for consideration before the Rajasthan High Court where the Tribunal held that the rims and axles fell within the ambit of entry [xiv] of clause [iv] of Section 14 of the Act. While dismissing the petition filed by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officers, it was observed as follows: "So far as the `axles' are concerned the same are expressly mentioned in the above entry (xiv). For this reason the Tribunal's decision relating to axles cannot be challenged. The question is only of the "rims" used in wheels of cycles and other vehicles. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ill also be entitled to costs." (Emphasis Supplied) 11. The aforesaid shows that the Apex Court did not agree with the view of the High Court and found that the view of the High Court of Allahabad gives a very narrow meaning to the said entry and therefore did not uphold the same and also found that cycle rims would fall in the clause of 'wheels' and accordingly tax was found leviable at the rate of 4%. We may also record that for the very product of `piston rings' the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has categorically found the product falling under sub-clause (viii) of Section 14(iv) of CST Act. Nothing is brought to our notice by the revenue that the aforesaid view of Punjab and Haryana High Court is reversed by the Apex Court or oth....