B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.

1. By the present Appeal, the Appellant is challenging the validity of the order dated 7th December, 2015 passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai (for short, the “MSTT”) in VAT Appeal No. 403 of 2013. By the impugned order, the MSTT held that the Rigid Frame Columns (for short, “RFCs”) sold by the Appellant were classifiable under the Residuary Entry E-1 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (for short, the “MVAT Act”) and not under Section 14(iv)(v) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, the “CST Act”) read with Schedule Entry C-55(v) of the MVAT Act. The substantial questions of law as framed in this Appeal and arising out of the impugned order, are as follows:-

(a) Whether the MSTT was right in concluding that Rigid Frame Columns in dispute are not classifiable under section 14(iv)(v) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Entry C-55(v) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 but classifiable under the Residuary Entry of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002?

(b) Whether the conclusion of the MSTT that Rigid Frame Columns are not classifiable under section 14(iv)(v) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Entry C-55(v) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 but classifiable under the Residuary Entry of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002 is perverse in the legal sense of the term?

2. In a nutshell, it is the case of the Appellant that section 14 of the CST Act deals with goods of special importance in inter- State trade or commerce. The goods sold by the Appellant (namely RFCs) would fall under section 14(iv)(v) of the CST Act which deals with the “steel structurals.” This section in the CST Act has to be read with Schedule Entry C-55(v) of the MVAT Act which is identical to section 14(iv)(v) of the CST Act. According to the Appellant the RFCs sold by them would directly fall within the aforesaid provisions and hence could not be classifiable under the Residuary Entry E-1 of the MVAT Act.

3. To understand the controversy in question, it would be necessary to advert to a few facts which are as under:-

(a) The Appellant is a Company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is a registered dealer under the MVAT Act. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra and Respondent No. 2 is the Commissioner of Sales Tax who is an Officer exercising powers and discharging duties conferred upon him under the provisions of the MVAT Act.

(b) The Appellant is inter-alia a manufacturer of various structural steel components such as rigid frame columns, rafters, sheets, angles, etc. in their factory in Pune. The Appellant has been engaged in the supply of the said structural steel components since 2007. The Appellant has regularly been filing returns and discharging its liability under the MVAT Act.

(c) According to the Appellant, these structural steel components are fabricated/ manufactured based on customer as well as geographical requirements etc. According to the Appellant, these individual components are then sold to the customers. The customers may subsequently optionally choose to avail the service of installation and erection by a sister concern of the Appellant or by a third party. Thus, according to the Appellant, the so-called pre-engineered buildings only emerge at the site of the customer after erection and after the completed sale of different components by the Appellant.

(d) Until the year 2011, the Appellant had been collecting VAT from its customers at the rate of 12.5% on account of RFCs (Rigid Frame Columns) and Rafters and remitting the same to the revenue. Thereafter, sometime in 2011, pursuant to a legal opinion obtained by the Appellant, the Appellant started collecting tax at the rate of 5% and not 12.5% specifically on rafters and RFCs and started remitting the same to the revenue. The opinion obtained by the Appellant was based, inter-alia, on a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Prateek Technoco