MIS SIRDANWAL INDUSTRIES
A
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX
AUGUST 7, 1996
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]
B
U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948:
S.3-A(2)-'Brass Wire'-Revemte classifyi11g it u11der 'brassware'
whereas the ma11ufacturer c/aimi11g it to be classifiable as a11 alloy under C
Notification dated 6.10.1971 mentioni11g copper, ti11, 11ickel, or zinc. or any
other alloy co11tai11i11g any of these metals-Held 'brass wire' manufactured
by the assessee is an alloy which colllains copper a11d zi11c a11d, therefore, falls
withi11 the e11try i11 the 11otificatio11.
Mis. Saru Smelti11g (P) Ltd. v. Com111issio11er of Sales Tax, Lucknow, D
[1993] Supp. 3 SCC 97, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 722-23
of 1980.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.10.79 of the Allahabad High E
Court in S.T.R. Nos. 825-26 of 1978.
U.A. Rana, R. Tyagi, M.K. Mohan, M.J.S. Ruppal for Gagrat & Co.
for the Appellants.
R.C. Verma, M.N. Mural and R.B. Misra for the Respondent.
F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The order under appeal is 9f the High Court at Allahabad in revision
petitions filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax under the U.P. Sales Tax
act. The question for consideration was whether brass wire manufactured · G
by the assessee was classifiable as 'brassware' as claimed by the Revenue
or under a notification dated 6.10.1971 issued under sub-section (2) of
Section 3-A which mentioned "copper, tin, nickel or zinc, or any other alloy
containing any of these metals".
The High Court rightly proceeded upon the basis that the brass wire H
343
344
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A manufactured by the assessee was an alloy of copper and zinc. It, however,
rejected the argument that, as such, it was covered under the aforemen-
tioned entry in the notification. It emphasised the words 'any of these
metals' in the entry and observed that if an alloy consisted of more than
one of the metals mentioned in the entry, it would not be covered by it. An
B
c
alloy, in its view, with copper or tin or nickel or zinc would be covered by
the entry, but an alloy comprising more than one of these metals was
beyond its scope. The High Court also relied upon the subsequent entry
in the notification and observed that the use of the word 'all' in that entry
and its omission in the relevant entry indicated that the intention was to
confine the lower rate of tax only to those alloys which comprised only one
of the metals named.
On a plain reading of the entry, we find it difficult to agree. Brass is
an alloy. It contains copper and zinc. It, therefore, contains a metal
mentioned in the entry. The entry applies to an alloy containing any of
these metals. It applies, therefore, to brass. It is of no consequence that
D the alloy (brass) contains more than one of the metals mentioned in the
entry.
The conclusion that we have reached is fortified by the judgment of
this Courl i:o Mis Sam Smelting (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax,
Lucknow, [1993] Supp. 3 SCC 97, where the entry was very similar, namely,
E
11copper, tin, nicke) or any other alloy containing any of these metals only
1'.
F
G
This Court said :
"The ·emphasis in the entry is - either it should be pure copper,
tin, nickel or zinc and if it is an alloy containing two or more metals,
it must be an alloy containing these metals only".
Since the alloy in question before the Court there contained phosphorous,
which was not one of the metals mentioned in the entry, the alloy was held
to fall outside the entry.
Brass wire, therefore, falls within the entry in the said notification.
The appeals are allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside.
The revision petitions filed before the High Court are dismissed.
The shall be no order as to costs.
R.P.
Appeals allowed.
Lex