H.L.DATTU, S.A.BOBDE
Mamta Surgical Cotton Industries, Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion), Bhilwara, Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER
1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Sales Tax Revision No. 932 of 2002 and connected matters, dated 23.01.2003. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has opined that 'surgical cotton' is a commercially different commodity from 'cotton' and accordingly confirmed the order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in Appeal Nos. 509 to 512 of 2001, dated 28.06.2002.
Facts:
2. The appellant is a partnership firm registered as a dealer both under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the CST Act'). The appellant carries on the business of processing the cotton and transforming it into surgical cotton.
3. The assessment years in question are 1992-93 to 1998-99. The assessee purchases cotton after paying tax at the rate of 4% and thereafter process it into surgical cotton for sale.
4. For the relevant assessment years, the assessing authority had conducted a survey on the business premises of the assessee and opined that surgical cotton produced and sold by the assessee is a separate commercial commodity from cotton and thus
U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd. [JT 2013 (13) SC 456] (Para 53)
Commr. of Customs v. Caryaire Equipment India (P) Ltd. [2012 (4) SCC 645] (Para 53)
CCE v. Osnar Chemical (P) Ltd. [JT 2012 (1) SC 284] (Para 17)
Jai Bhagwan Oil & Flour Mills v. Union of India [JT 2009 (13) SC 631] (Para 17)
Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. v. Ashok Iron Works (P) Ltd. [JT 2009 (2) SC 447] (Para 52)
CIT v. Tara Agencies [JT 2007 (9) SC 65] (Para 17)
Crane Betel Nut Powder Works v. Commr. of Customs & Central Excise [JT 2007 (4) SC 485] (Para 17)
CCE v. S.R. Tissues (P) Ltd. [JT 2005 (7) SC 475] (Para 21)
Kores India Ltd. v. CCE [JT 2004 (10) SC 55] (Para 27)
Aman Marble Industries (P) Ltd. v. CCE [2005 (1) SCC 279] (Para 17)
Metlex (I) (P) Ltd. v. CCE [2005 (1) SCC 271] (Para 17)
Shyam Oil Cake Ltd. v. CCE [JT 2004 (10) SC 518] (Para 17)
State of Maharashtra v. Mahalaxmi Stores [JT 2002 (9) SC 633] (Para 17)
Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [JT 2001 (7) SC 555] (Para 17)
Park Leather Industry (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. [JT 2001 (2) SC 577] (Para 17)
CST v. Lal Kunwa Stone Crusher (P) Ltd. [JT 2000 (3) SC 204] (Para 10)
Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [JT 1999 (9) SC 275] (Para 17)
Ashirwad Ispat Udyog v. State Level Committee [JT 1998 (7) SC 588] (Para 17)
Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. [JT 1997 (9) SC 750] (Para 19)
Brakes India Ltd. v. Supdt. of Central Excise [1997 (10) SCC 717] (Para 27)
CST v. Jagannath Cotton Co. [JT 1995 (5) SC 569] (Para 17)
Saraswati Sugar Mills v. Haryana State Board [JT 1991 (4) SC 220] (Para 17)
Dy. CST v. Coco Fibres [JT 1990 (4) SC 618] (Para 17)
CCE v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works [JT 1991 (4) SC 6] (Para 17)
Laminated Packings (P) Ltd. v. CCE [JT 1990 (3) SC 493] (Para 17)
CCE v. Kiran Spg. Mills [JT 1988 (1) SC 369] (Para 17)
Standard Fireworks Industries v. Collector of Central Excise [JT 1987 (1) SC 460] (Para 27)
RBI v. Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. [1987 (1) SCC 424] (Para 51)
Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka [1986 (3) SCC 469] (Para 10)
South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India [1968 (3) SCR 21] (Para 17)
J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. STO [1965 (1) SCR 900] (Para 17)
Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1963 (Suppl. 1) SCR 586] (Para 18)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.