ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER Vs. GAYATRI CABLES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue is aggrieved by the order dated October 28, 2002, passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, whereby the learned Board has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and upheld the order of the learned first appellate authority dated May 1, 2000. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s. Gayatri Cables, is carrying on a business of manufacturing of super enameled copper wire and insulated copper wire. For the purpose of manufacturing super enameled copper wire and insulated copper wire, it bought raw material (copper) on concessional rate at 1.5 percent as per notification dated March 6, 1991. The notification dated March 6, 1991 granted an exemption from the sale of any product of copper to the extent to which the rate of tax in respect thereof exceeds 1.5 percent on the conditions, namely, (1) such copper is used as raw material in the manufacture of any other products of copper within the State of Rajasthan; (2) that such manufactured products of copper is sold within the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce; and (3) that such manufacturer shall issue a declaration to this effect in form ST-17 appended to the RST Rules, 1955 to the selling dealer. The assessing authority did not consider the product manufactured by the assessee as a copper product. According to the assessing authority, the assessee had produced enameled wire. Therefore, the product should be treated as "electric wire". Thus, the assessee could not take the benefit of the exemption. Hence, the different tax and interest to the tune of Rs. 6,479 and Rs. 4,276 totalling of Rs. 10,755 was imposed by the assessing authority upon the assessee vide order dated August 20, 1998.

(2.) Since the assessee was aggrieved by the said assessment order, it filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur. Vide order dated May 1, 2000, the learned appellate authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated August 20, 1998. Since the Revenue was aggrieved by the order dated May 1, 2000, it filed an appeal before the learned Board. However, vide order dated October 28, 2002, the learned Board rejected the appeal. Hence, this petition before this court.

(3.) Mr. Lokesh Mathur, the learned counsel for the Revenue, has vehemently contended that the assessee had bought copper and had produced the copper wire which were sold as electric wire. Therefore, the product should have been treated as electric wire. He has further contended that the copper does not change its nature; taken as raw material, the copper continues to be copper even after going through the manufacturing process. Therefore, the exemption could not be claimed by the assessee. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of State of Madhya Bharat State of Madhya Pradesh v. Hiralal, 1966 17 STC 313and A. Nagaraju Bros. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1994 95 STC 1