K G VIJAYAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions are filed by two different assessees. In both of them we are concerned with the assessment year 1978-79. The Revenue is the respondent in both the cases. The petitioners (assessees) are dealers in mats, mattings, etc. They are exporters in coir products. In pursuance of anterior contracts, the petitioners purchased coir products and after subjecting such coir products to sheaving, smoking and stencilling, exported them. Their claim for exemption under section 5 (3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, was negatived by the assessing authority. The said view was upheld by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. After referring to a few decisions, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the unfinished goods purchased by the petitioners and those exported by them after the process, such as sheaving, smoking, stencilling, etc. , are two different commodities and so, the goods exported by the petitioners are not the very same goods purchased and so, they are not entitled to the exemption pleaded under section 5 (3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessees have come up in revisions.

(2.) WE heard counsel for the petitioner Mr. Abul Hassan, as also the counsel for the Revenue, Mr. N. N. D. Pillai. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the Appellate Tribunal laid undue stress on the decisions which dealt with the cases arising under the Central Excises and Salt Act, to determine as to whether there is a manufacturing process involved in subjecting the coir products purchased, to sheaving, smoking and stencilling before export. It was contended that the coir products purchased and the coir products exported are the same commercial commodity. It is erroneous to say that by the minimal process employed, such as sheaving, smoking, stencilling, etc. , to make the commodity purchased, more attractive, the goods purchased become commercially a different product. On the other hand, counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Pillai, laid stress on the fact that a person, who wants to purchase the finished goods, after sheaving. smoking, webbing, stencilling, etc. , will not be satisfied with the goods before such processes are employed, and that will show that the commodity purchased and the commodity exported after the above processes are distinct and different. In this view of the matter, counsel for the Revenue urged that the conditions prescribed under section 5 (3) of the Central Sales Tax Act are not satisfied.