2022 (5) TMI 1194

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed in S.A. No.2957 of 2003-04 whereby it has been held ineligible to avail sales tax exemption on the excess production and sale of cement of a quantity of 1670 MT. 2. The Petitioner set up a small scale industrial unit for manufacture and sale of cement and registered itself with the Director of Industries, Govt. of Orissa w.e.f. 11th September, 1990 and in that regard, PMT certificate was issued by the Project Manager, District Industries Centre, Rourkela (PM, DIC). It is pleaded that in conformity with the declaration of I.P.R.1989, the eligibility certificates (Annexure-2&3) were issued in favour of the Petitioner for availing the sales tax exemption on purchase of raw materials and the finished product. 3. It is not in dispute t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rmed the assessment and held that the excess production of 1670 MT is amenable to tax. Against that decision of the ACST, the Petitioner finally approached the Tribunal which again held that such excess production and sale of cement which may be accidental or occasional is exigible to sales tax @ 12% with surcharge @ 10% on the tax so assessed. In other words, the claim of the Petitioner vis-à-vis exemption over and in respect of the excess production of 1670 MT stood disallowed by the Tribunal thereby upholding the assessment of the STO and ACST. 4. Heard Mr. S. Ray, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.S. Padhy, learned ASC for the Department. 5. Mr. Ray contends that the Petitioner is entitled to avail the sales tax ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s entitled to sales tax exemption? As already stated, the Tribunal being in agreement with the assessment of the STO and ACST rejected the claim of the Petitioner and held that the exemption is confined to 15000 MT and for the excess production of 1670 MT, it is exigible to tax @ 12%. 8. By placing reliance upon a letter dated 10th October, 2000 (Annexure-5) of the PM, DIC, the contention of the Petitioner is that the installed capacity of the unit is 15000 MT on a single shift basis and for the excess production, the tax benefit cannot be denied. As per Annexure-5, during the impugned period, the unit was in operation for more than 8 hours which is beyond one shift and hence, the production capacity crossed the capacity as fixed in the ....