TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 of 2004 for A.Y. 1999-2000. The Tribunal has upheld the order passed by the Assessing Authority and the First Appellate Authority by which demand of entry tax has been created and confirmed on the assessee with respect to import of certain machinery and machinery parts. According to the assessee, the value of the individual machinery and the individual spare parts was less than Rs. 10,00,000/-, and therefore, such transactions were not taxable under Schedule Entry No.2 of the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 3. The present revision has been heard on the following question of law:- "Whether any entry could have been levied on the assessee for import of machineries and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- and not otherwise. 7. Therefore, the First Appellate Authority vide his order dated 16.08.2002 allowed the assessee's appeal and remitted the matter to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order. Upon remand, by his order dated 25.08.2003, the Assessing Authority again concluded that the composite value of the machinery and spare parts was in excess of Rs. 10,00,000/- in case of four import declaration forms and thus against import Declaration Form nos. 4115959, 4117251, 4118229 and 4116219. The assessee's appeal against the aforesaid order has been dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned order. Hence this revision. 8. Upon consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard and is being decided finally ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r spare parts for textile machinery. Also, reliance has been placed on the other two import declaration forms utilised to the same effect. Thus, it has been submitted that the assessee did not import any single spare part of value more than Rs. 10,00,000/- and there is no finding that it had in fact made such import. Merely because the total value of the spare parts imported through one import declaration form exceeded Rs. 10,00,000/- though the identity of each spare thus imported was different, no taxable event could arise in view of the clear language of the taxing entry. 11. Reliance has been placed on the reasoning of this Court in the case of M/S. Skipper Steels Ltd. Mall Avenue Road Lucknow Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P., L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t circular, referring to the Schedule Entry noted above, it has been clarified : 15. Thus, under the schedule entry 2, entry tax has been imposed on a machinery that may be imported into a local area of value more than Rs. 10,00,000/- or a single spare part of a machinery whose value may be more than Rs. 10,00,000/-. Therefore, by way of example (only), if value of a single machinery is more than Rs. 15,00,000/-, the same would remain taxable for the purposes of the Entry Tax Act, even if the assessee chooses to knock down such machinery before its import and cause its entry into the local area in three different parts with value of each part at Rs. 5,00,000/-. In that event, the machinery imported being one and it being valued at more tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise of the spare parts. Otherwise, it would lead to contradictory results. This position has also been made plain by the circular noted above. 17. The same view has been taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M/S. Skipper Steels Ltd. Mall Avenue Road Lucknow Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow (supra) with which I am in full agreement. 18. Insofar as the decision relied by the learned Standing Counsel is concerned, the same is found to be wholly distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in that case the assessee had established a telephone exchange and imported certain parts and equipment for the same. The telephone exchange would be one machinery. The finding of the Court in that case is based principally ....