AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner is before us in this revision petition. Petitioner caused entry of rigid PVC Pipes, fittings for agricultural use amongst others during the relevant period. The assessing authority passed orders of assessment and levied tax on the said commodities as per Entry 54 of the notification dtd 30-4-1002 holding that it is an article made from plastic. Unsuccessful appeals were filed before the Joint Commissioner and later before the tribunal. Petitioner in these circumstances is before us.
The following questions of law were framed by this Court on 13-8-2003 for consideration;
a) Whether the appellate tribunal is justified in applying the technical and scientific test to classify PVC rigid pipes as an article of plastic when it is generally treated and understood in trade and commerce to carry water to fields for irrigation purpose?
b) Whether is justified in classifying in Entry 54 of the notification ED 69 CET 92(1) dtd 30-4-1992 instead of entry No. 1 of Second Schedule to the KTEG Act?
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
All the three authorities below have ruled that the article in question falls under the Entry 54 of the notification dtd 30-4-1992. It is not disputed before us that the article in question namely PVC pipes are made of plastic material in terms of Entry 54. What is argued before us is that the said article would fall within the meaning of agricultural implements in terms of the Act. The same has been noticed by the tribunal in paras 16 and 17 and thereafter the tribunal rightly in our view has chosen to reject the contention of the assessee. Entry 54 is wide enough to include an article made out of plastic material. It cannot therefore be said that therefore the authorities are in any way wrong in bringing the article to tax under Entry 54 of the notification. The argument that the said PVC pipe is an agricultural instrument is not acceptable to us. According to New Webster''s Dictionary, ''implement'' means an instrument, tool or utensil or an article assisting in carrying on manual labours. PVC pipe would not fit into the dictionary meaning of the �implement''.
Sri Krishna, learned Counsel for the assessee places before us a decision of the Madras High Court reported in 1995 (97 STC 449) Mad. We have carefully seen the said judgment. In para 5 of the said judgment the Division Bench of the Madras High court has noticed the entry ''plastic articles''. That entry stands on a different footing. (sic) That judgment therefore is not applicable to the facts of this case.
In these circumstances, this writ petition stands dismissed. Questions of law are answered in favour of the revenue.