LexHAWKINS COOKERS LIMITED versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 77 ,. HAWKINS COOKERS LIMITED A II. STATE OF KERALA (Civil Appeal Nos. 6469-6470 of 2002) .. -< APRIL 29, 2008 B [ASHOK BHAN AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.] Kera/a General Sales Tax Act, 1963 - Entry 104 - Sa ti Ion! ·1 Tut/on coated cookware - Held: Classifiable under Entry 104 and not under Entry 5 - Such products cannot be treated as c ~ ordinary aluminium household utensils - Satilon/Tuf/on coating makes the products non sticky and hence different from aluminium household utensil falling under Entry 5 - The amendment to Entry 104 in 1999 by which the word 'non-stick' 1 cookware was added was merely clarificatory in nature. D The questions which arose for consideration in these appeals were whether the satilon coated cookware and articles coated with tuflon are classifiable under Entry 5 of First Schedule under Ke re la General Sales Tax Act, 1963 as 'an aluminium household utensil made of utensil' or E whether these products would fall under Entry 104 which pertains to 'pressure cooker, cook and serve ware to keep food warm, casseroles, water filters and similar home appliances not coming under any other entry'. The Assessing Authority classified the product under F Entry 5. The Appellate Authority held that as the satilon coating made the goods non-stick, it would make it different from the aluminium household utensils made of aluminium covered under Entry 5 of the First Schedule. The Tribunal upheld the same. High Court held that the G - >- products were classifiable under the heading ·"similar home appliances" under Entry 104 of the Act and that the amendment to Entry 104 in the year 1999 by which the word "non-stick cookware" was added was only 77 H \ 78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R. A clarificatory in nature. Hence these appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The view taken by the Tribunal as well as the High Court that "satilon coated aluminium products" B are not identical with "aluminium household utensils made of aluminium and aluminium alloys" is correct. The coating of satilon makes all the difference to the product. The Tribunal rightly recorded a finding that in trade parlance, no one would describe satilon coated c aluminium products as aluminium household utensils. [Para 5] [80-F] 1.2. The satilon coated cookware cannot be treated as ordinary aluminium housohold utensils. Price of the satilon coated cookware is mLJch more than the aluminium . ; D household utensils made of a~uminium and its alloys. The J.. Hawkins cookware sold by the assessee cannot be categorized as household utensils made of aluminium for the reasons that the satilon coating makes the goods non- sticky and hence different from the aluminium household E utensils. In common parlance, Hawkins cookware with satilon coating is not understc>od as aluminium ware. The view taken by the High Court that the amendment to Entry 104 of the First Schedule is clarificatory in nature is also correct. [Para 6] [80-H; 81-A-B] F Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd and Ors. v. State of Kera/a and G Ors. (1989) 3 SCC 127; Met/ex(/) (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi (2005) 1 SCC 271; Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin v. Apollo Tyres Ltd. (2005) 11 SCC 444 - distinguished. 2. Coating of tuflon also makes the article non-stick. [Para 1 O] [81-G] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 5459L5470 of 2002. ..... - HAWKINS COOKERS LIMITED v. STATE OF KERALA 79 ~ [BHAN, J.] From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2001 of the A High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in TRC No. 562-563/2001. WITH ' . Civil Appeal No. 7169 of 2004 and 1203 of 2008. ~ B T.L.V. Iyer, Gopal Jain, Kaushik Mishra, Bindu K. Nair, Sarika Singh, Ruby Singh Ahuja, K.R. Sasiprabhu, Krishan Venugopal, K. Varghese, Sidhartha, Naresh Kumar, G. Prakash, Beena Prakash, Varun Sarin (for Ramesh Babu M.R.) for the ~ appearing parties. ' c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAN, J. 1. This order shall dispose of Civil Appeal Nos. 6469-6470 of 2002, 7169 of 2004 and 1203 of 2008. J: Civil Appeal Nos. 6469-6470 of 2002 & 1203 of 2008 D 2. The issue which arises for consideration in these appeals is, whether the satilon brand cookware sold by the appellants is an "aluminium household utensil made of aluminum" and "aluminium alloys" classifiable under Entry 5 of the First Schedule under the Kera la General Sales Tax Act, 1963 E
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.