Fill in the following details to e-mail
To
Cc
Subject
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> <br /> Supreme Court <br /><br /> Exemption being the creation of the statute itself, has to be construed strictly<br /><br /> MANU/SC/1115/2023 - (09 Oct 2023)<br /><br /> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Triveni Glass Limited Vs. Asstt. Commissioner (Assessment) Trade Tax</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE"><strong>The point that arises for consideration is whether "tinted glass sheets" manufactured by the Appellants is liable to be taxed as "goods or wares made of glass" under the Notification No. 5784 dated 7th September, 1981 being Entry No. IV or as unclassified item.<br><br> When the Assessee is contending that an item/product falls under the residuary category, necessarily the burden is on the Assessee to prove the said fact and in the instant case, the business premises of the Appellant was inspected by Special Investigation Branch of the Department and it was revealed that "tinted glass sheet" was being manufactured through a different process. When the contention of Appellant that "plain glass panes" would include 'tinted glass sheet' is examined, same has to be rejected as the general meaning of "glassware" could not have been attached to 'tinted glass' sheet or the exclusion would have been specific in Entry (IV) itself. The expression "all the goods and wares made of glass" occurring in Notification dated:07.09.1981 must be taken to refer to all articles of glass except those specifically excluded in the entry itself.<br><br> Neither the dictionary meaning nor the common parlance theory would come to the rescue of the Appellant. There is no vagueness in the notification dated 7th September, 1981 and the entry No. 4 is clear and unambiguous namely it has brought within the sweep "all goods and wares made of glass" exigible to tax but not including "plain glass panes" and the exemption being the creation of the statute itself, it has to be construed strictly and even if there is any vagueness in the exemption Clause must go to the benefit of the revenue. <br><br> The impugned judgments would not call for interference and accordingly the appeals are dismissed. The notice for reassessment issued in Civil Appeal is upheld. Appeals dismissed.</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ><strong></strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ><strong>Tags : Product, Classification, Exemption</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> <tr> <!--<td><strong>Source : <a target="_new" href="http://www.manupatrafast.com/">newsroom.manupatra.com</a></strong></td>--> <td align="left" valign="top"><strong>Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>