Dismissed

The Addl. Commissioner of Slaes Tax Vat -Iii Mumbai v. M/S. Chimanlal Govind Das

Bombay HC31 Aug 2012STXA/15/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In sales tax appeal No. 15 of 2012, the High Court of Bombay dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the classification of Bakery Shortening and IVF. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision that allowed the assessee's claim based on the VPORO definition and expert opinions.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no merit found in the challenge to the Tribunal's order allowing the assessee's claim.

The Addl. Commissioner of Slaes Tax Vat -Iii Mumbai Vs… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2012)

STA No.15 of 2012

hvn

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

SALES TAX APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2012

¶7

The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai … Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s. Chimanlal Govind Das … Respondent

¶10

Ms. I. Calcuttawala, A.G.P. for the State/Appellant.

¶11

Mr. P.V. Surte with Mr. S.P. Surte for the respondent.

¶12

CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR &

¶13

R.D. DHANUKA,JJ. DATED : AUGUST 31, 2012

¶14

P.C.

¶15

The question of law raised by the Revenue in this appeal reads thus :

¶16

“Whether the product Bakery Shortening which is admittedly a mixture of Vegetable oils and a different product altogether from Vanaspati would be classifiable under Schedule Entry C100 as sought to be done by the Hon'ble Tribunal and whether the product IVF too can be classified under Schedule Entry C 102 as it is a mixture of Vegetable oils having undergone a complete change in its consistency and structure, of an irreversible character?”

¶17

The Tribunal relying upon its decision in the case of IVP Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra in Second Appeal Nos. 302 and 303 of 2011 decided on 31^st

¶18

¶19

STA No.15 of 2012

¶20

March, 2012, has allowed the claim of the assessee. The said decision of the Tribunal in the case of IVP Ltd., has been accepted by the revenue. Moreover, the Tribunal in para 15 of its order has recorded as follows :

¶21

“15. The Liberty Oil Mills Ltd., has also given information that the Interesterified vegetable Fat is refined, interesterified, deodorized edible oil. The Edible Oil Products Commissioner has opined that the Interesterified vegetable oil fat is edible oil. Similar certificate is given by the Assistant Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration, Thane. The information from the manufacturers Foods Facts and Fertilizer Limited and Liberty Oils Mills Ltd., the Certificate from the Vegetable Oil Products Commissioner and Assistant Food and Drug Administration supported by the definition u/s.2(f) of the Vegetable Oil Products (Regulation) Order 1998 would reveal that the vegetable oil is treated with catalyst to bring about rearrangement of free fatty acid positions within glyceride moieties to change properties such as melting point, viscosity and specific gravity. It does not reveal any change in the identity of the edible oil/vegetable oil or its nutritional properties.”

¶22

For the aforesaid reasons, we see no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶23

(R.D. DHANUKA,J.)

¶24

(J.P. DEVADHAR,J.)

The Addl. Commissioner of Slaes Tax Vat -Iii Mumbai v. M/S. Chimanlal Govind Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Addl. Commissioner of Slaes Tax Vat -Iii Mumbai v. M/S. Chimanlal Govind Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital and Nanavati Hospital Research Centre Vs Unio of India through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and Ors.

Prabhakar L. Mehta Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Mrs. Mita Ketan Shah and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S. Timex Art Decor Pvt. Limited, through Director, Mr. Nitin J. Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Forbes and Co. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Kundan Industriea Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise Thane-Ii Commissionerate