TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (7) TMI 88
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th reference to the assessment year 1981-82. With effect from July 1, 1985 a new entry, viz., Entry 163 was introduced in Schedule-I expressly taking in all kinds of suit cases and simultaneously amending Entry 113. Prior to July 1, 1985, there was no entry dealing specifically with suit cases. Entry 113 read as follows : "Plastic sheets and articles" and the rate of tax was 6%. In the year 1983, the rate of tax was increased to 9%. The amended Entry 113 (w.e.f. July 1, 1985) reads as follows : "plastic sheets and articles excluding those allied goods falling under any other item" whereas Entry 163 reads : "all kinds of suit cases, brief cases and vanity bags". 2. The appellant is a dealer inter alia in `V.I.P.' suit cases. Suit cases are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ruary, 1991 in the case of Safari Suit Cases (Private) Limited. Indeed in the case of this very dealer relating to the assessment year 1983-84, the Tribunal held following the decision in T.A. No. 1357 of 1988 that these suit cases are plastic articles. Contrary view was expressed in T.A. No. 566 of 1984 and in this very matter. In T.A. No. 1357 of 1988, the Tribunal has set out the following circumstances in support of its opinion that the said suit cases are plastic articles : "1. That when licencing the industry for production of these suit cases, the Government of India described the articles to be manufactured as injection moulded plastic goods; 2. For exporting the said injection moulded plastic goods they are registered with the Pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arly indicate that it is a major component in all brief cases and is more than 50% in all suit cases except small suit cases where it is about 45%." Having set out the above circumstances, the Tribunal applied the test of predominance as well as the test of common parlance or commercial understanding, as it may be called, and arrived at the conclusion in favour of the dealer. In our opinion, the circumstances mentioned as Items 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 read with the affidavits referred to in Item 6 are strong circumstances in favour of the view that these suit cases are plastic articles. It is not disputed that the main raw material which goes into manufacture of the said suit cases is plastic. Even in common parlance these suit cases are understo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re this test may not be appropriate. In such cases, other tests like the test of predominance, either by weight or value or on some other basis may have to be applied. It is indeed not possible, nor desirable, to lay down any hard and fast rules of universal application. But so far as the goods concerned herein are concerned, these are undoubtedly plastic goods. Indeed, we put a straight question to Sri C. Sitaramiah, how would he characterise these goods? The answer could not be anything else than that they are plastic goods. Merely because the value of the steel including the locks and other materials used in the suit cases is more than the value of plastics, they cannot be called articles made of steel or of such other materials. Of cour....