TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble Court in the case of M/s The Bombay Oil Industries (P) Limited, Kanpur Vs. The Commissioner of Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2008 U.P.T.C. page 1173 wherein the Hon'ble High Court specifically held that Tribunal was justified in holding that Parachute Coconut Oil is liable to be taxed as 'hair oil' and not under the category of oils of all kinds'. But it was not justified in remanding the matter to the Assessing Authority? ii. Whether the learned Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was justified in holding the Medikar in the category of medicine? iii. Whether the learned Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was justified in holding the "Revived Instant Starch" in the category of 'starch'?" Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that said judgment has already been considered by this Court in TTR No. 153 of 2011 (assessment year 2010-11) for the month of May, 2009 decided on 12.09.2014. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the issue relating to classification of the 'Parachute Coconut Oil' and 'Revive Instant Starch' has been decided in favou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter. WARNING The product is toxic if swallowed. Store far from food and drinking water. Keep away from children and pets. If it gets into the eyes wash affected area immediately with clean water COMPOSITION D-Phenothrin EP 0.23% W/V Triclosan E.P. 0.05% W/V base q.s. MEDIKER is the registered trade mark of Richardson - Vicks Inc. Manufactured by PROCTER & GAMBLE INDIA LIMITED BOMBAY 400011 Licenced Users of the Trademark Contents 45ml Mfg. Lic No. 526/A/AP Retail price not to exceed Rs. 9.60 (Local Tax extra) FOR EXTERNAL USE ONLY MADE IN INDIA Expiry date 2 years from the date of Mfg. Batch No. 8969 Date of Mfg. 12/88. 12. The tribunal posed a question: Can Mediker cure and prevent a disease? On the basis of material on record, the tribunal came to hold thus:- "20. ... Our perusal of these documents shows that the infestation of lice on the head causes several diseases and a product which is to treat such diseases has to be considered to be a medicament. Merck Index of Chemicals and Drugs, Biological, Tenth Edition descri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Colour Granules 1% The submission of the learned senior counsel is that Tapioca starch which is edible comprises about 97% of the product and the remaining items from 2 to 7 contains a negligible 3% of the chemicals and therefore Revive Starch must necessarily be classified as Starch falling in Entry 118 of Schedule II, Part A and therefore liable to tax as such and not be treated as an unclassified item. The submission further is that Entry 118 of the Schedule II, Part A mentions only Starch and does not draw any distinction between edible starch and non edible starch and therefore it would make no difference if by addition of about 3% of sodium laury 1 sulphate, silicon dioxide, perfume assem B, titanium dioxide, micro-guard and colour granules collectively it would became inedible and therefore the Tribunal was not correct in holding that since Revive Starch is inedible it cannot be treated as Starch equivalent to Starch mentioned in Entry 118 which is clubbed with Sago and Sabudana nor is the revisionist entitled to the benefit of Section 70 of the U.P. VAT Act or the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 heading no. 3505.10 which mentions " dextrines and other m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had occasion to interpret the word Rice as existing in Item 66 (b) of the Schedule I to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and it was held in paragraph 10 that the term Rice is wide enough to include Rice in its various forms whether edible or inedible. Rice in the form of grain is not edible but parched rice and puffed rice are edible but the entry "Rice" covers both forms of rice. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment reads as under: "It is clear that there is a distinction between "paddy", as found in Item 8 of the Second Schedule, and "rice", as mentioned under Item 66 of the First Schedule. Apparently, the removal of the husk makes this difference. It is true that the First Schedule, which contains as many as 136 items, includes a number of separate fairly detailed entries. Entry 58 is for bran or husk of "rice" and Entry 59 is for "deoiled bran of rice". It appears, therefore, that "rice in husk" is "paddy". When it is removed from husk, the husk and rice become separately taxable. But, there are not separate entries for rice and rice reduced into an edible form by heating or parching without any addition of ingredients or appreciable changes in chemical com....