2021 (3) TMI 488

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der dated 24.03.2014 in T.A. (VAT) Nos.714/2010, 715/2010 and 716/2010. The respondent is a registered dealer under the KVAT Act. The details of the three revisions are stated thus: Sl. No. Assessment Year Tax Appeal No. O.T.Rev. No.  1 2006-07 714/2010 145/2014  2 2007-08 715/2010 148/2014  3 2008-09 716/2010 150/2014 2. In these three revisions the issue deals with the applicable rate of tax on a product sold and covered in the sales return of respondent, i.e., 'Orbit White Chewing Gum'. The assessee reported the sales of 'Orbit White Chewing Gum' and paid tax at the rate of 4%. The assessing officer rejected the claim of respondent and determined the ratabl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed." 5. Learned Senior Government Pleader Mohammed Rafiq argues that the Tribunal fell in a serious error by ipse dixit accepting the invoices raised by the manufacturer M/s.Wringly India Pvt. Ltd, in favour of dealer for the chewing gum, as covered by H.S.N. Code 3004.90.11, an Ayurvedic Medicine taxable @ 4%. The chewing gum has been accepted by the Central Excise Department as chargeable @ 4%. The classification is undertaken by keeping all primary aspects in perspective, which are further assisted by supporting or secondary circumstances in favour of one or the other classification. Explained further, his argument is that neither the invoice nor the details set out in the invoice under the goods sold in favour of the dealer are final....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....zed as very brief, the reasoning contains grist for recording a finding that the rate of tax applicable to the subject produce is 4%. He argues that chewing gum comes under the broad parlance of Ayurvedic medicine. The manufacturer has obtained license from the competent authority under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for the subject product under 'Ayurvedic' category. He does not seriously object to remand, and requests the Court to direct the Tribunal to grant opportunity to respondent/assessee to bring on record material in support of the case of respondent that applicable rate of tax is only 5% under Entry 36 of KVAT Act. 7. The above arguments bring home our conclusion without much reasoning on the first objection taken by th....