TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 712
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are taken up as the lead case. 4. Vide the said common order dated 13.07.2007, the Tribunal had allowed the appeals preferred by the assessee by setting aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad, (herein referred to as, the 'Revisional Authority') and restored the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT). As a consequence, the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer imposing penalty stood set aside. 5. The assessee herein is a registered body under the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'APGST Act, 1957') as also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'CST Act, 1956') engaged in the business of works contracts apart from being manufacturing, supply, design, erection and testing and commissioning of water supply systems and manufacture and sale of cement pipes. The activities are carried out in addition to the state of Andhra Pradesh to other states as well. They have two manufacturing units of cement pipes. The cement pipes manufactured by the assessee are used in the execution of works contract that they get and they also sell the cement pipes in the course of interstate trade and commerce. 6. The assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itled to purchase cement for production of finished goods at a concessional rate and that the cement pipes manufactured at the assessee's manufacturing unit used in the execution of works contract was a deemed sale of cement pipes. It is this order of the Revisional Authority which the Revenue had challenged before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) where the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer was set aside holding that Section 5B of the APGST Act, 1957, envisages finished goods to be used for general commercial merchandise and must be marketable as 'chattel-qua-chattel'. 10. It was the opinion of the Revisional Authority that even though cement pipes manufactured by the assessee was being used in the execution of the works contract and the same amounts to a deemed sale, but in law, it cannot be treated as a sale for the reason that there is no transfer of property in goods. Therefore, ordered that the assessee should pay tax at the rate of 12% under Section 5F of the APGST Act, 1957 on the sale of cement pipes instead of 4% that was paid by the assessee under Section 5G of the APGST Act, 1957. It is this order which has been reversed by the Tribunal leading to filing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irtue of the above referred clarification till G.O.Ms.496, Revenue (CT.II) Department, dated 17.7.2001. The Government issued said G.O and certain goods including cement are made not eligible for concessional rate of tax U/s.5G of the Act. However, the proviso to the G.O clarifies that the purchase of cement by the manufacturers of finished goods like asbestoes sheets, pipes, paint manufacturers using white cement, hallow bricks are eligible for concessional rate of tax U/s.5G, it those manufacturers use the cement purchased by them as raw material to produce finished goods 'for sale'. It has to be seen that there is no condition that the finished goods must be sold either in Section B or in the Rules. The only condition which Section 5B envisages is that the dealer who purchases raw material or other goods must manufacture goods i.e., they must have manufacturing units. Admittedly, the appellant comes within the purview of the said proviso and because the appellant has purchased the cement for manufacturing cement pipes. So using the cement purchased by issuing G Forms for manufacturing cement pipes is not in dispute. Of course, the proviso to the above referred G.O., shows that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pipes. In the light of the above discussion, we set-aside the impugned order passed by the revisional authority and restore the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. Consequently, the order of the C.T.O., imposing penalty stands set-aside." 12. In the afore given admitted factual backdrop, the aforesaid finding of facts by the Tribunal cannot under any stretch of imagination be held to be contrary to law or contrary to the materials which have been taken into consideration for the purpose of reaching to the said conclusion. 13. A similar view was taken by this Bench while deciding Tax Revision Case No.8 of 2008 and batch on 09.10.2023, wherein in paragraph No.19, this Bench had taken a similar stand while dismissing the Tax Revision Cases filed by the assessee which again for ready reference, is reproduced herein under: "19. A plain reading of the aforesaid proviso would clearly give an indication that when a purchase of cement is made by a manufacturer of a finished good like asbestos sheets, pipes, paint manufacturers, hallow bricks, it would be eligible for purchase of cement at a concessional rate. The petitioner was not a manufacturer of any finished goods like th....