LexUNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD.
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MARCH 20, 1995
(J.S. VERMA, S.P. BHARUCHA AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.}
Andl1ra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act 1957-First Schedule-Dry cell
batteries' and 'arc carbons'-whether exigible to tax under Entry 3 or Entry
38 of the first schedule to the Act.
~·
The assessee company manufactured dry cells and arc carbons, and
A
B
c
the question arose as to.whether they were liable to a higher rate under
entry 3 or 4 as wireless reception instruments or cinematographic equip-
ment respectively, or a lower rate under entry 38 relating to all electrical
goods, of the first schedule of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act
1957 for the assessment years 1969-70. The Tribunal held that dry cell D
batteries were taxable under entry 38 except those specified for use in
transistors which would fall under entry 3, while arc carbons were taxable
under entry 4. The revision petitions filed by the assessee were dismissed
by the High Court. Hence these appeals and special leave petitions.
E
Dismissing the matters, this Court
HELD:l. The main use of the arc carbons was duly proved to be that
of production of powerful light used in projectors in cinemas. The fact that
they can also .be used for search lights, signalling, stage lighting, or where
powerful lighting for photography or other purposes might be' required F
could not detract from the classification to which the arc carbons belong.
That is determined by their common purpose or user. This is evident from
the fact that they. are known as 'cinema arc Carbons' in the market. The
goods are cov~red by entry 4. [789-E-G)
,_
Annapooma Carbon Industries v. State of A.P., (1976) 37 STC 378, G
relied on.
2.1 Dry batteries are called primary cells which are different from
accumulators, secondary cells or storage batteries. For this reason dry
batteries cannot be treated as storage batteries for the purpose of entry . H
785
/
786
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995) 2 S.C.R.
A 137 or accumulators for the purpose of entry 3. (792-H, 794-F]
i.2 The expression 'accessories thereor in entry 3 indicates that the
entry can be attracted only if the dry batteries or cells can be treated as
accessories of the wireless reception instruments etc. specified in entry 3
or else they would fall under entry 38 as other accessories of all electrical
B goods ~eing the residuary entry. The dry cells or batteries used in transis-
tors manufactured by the assessee alone during the pre-1976 period may
fall under entry 3. However batteries not specified for use in transistors
alone cannot be treated as 'accessories thereor of wireless reception
instruments etc., for the purpose of entry ~. Applying the test, it cannot be
C
hel~/~hat dry batteries or cells which are not market 'for Transistors' and
were multi-purpose cells manufactured for predominant use as accessories
of the wireless instruments to fall under entry 3 so that they could not be
treated as 'other accessories' for the purpose of attracting entry 38.
[794-G, H, 795·A·E]
D
Hamlyn All-Colour Science Encyclopedia; the Chambers Science and
Technoiogy Dictionary and New Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol.I. page 963,
referred to.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.102 and
961of1977.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.2.76 o{the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in T.R.C. No. 19 and 18of1975.
Dr. D.P. Pal, C. Sitaramiah, Mrs. AK. Verma, P.D. Tyagi for J.B.D.
& Co., Ms. Priya Hingorani, Kamini Jaiswal, G. Prakash, Ms. T.V.S.N.
p
Char~ S.R. Agrawal, Gautam Khaitan, AN. Arora (NP) and B. Parthasar-
thy for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
J.S. VERMA, J. These appeals by special leave are against the
G judgment dated 5.2.1976 in Tax Revision Case Nos. 18 and 19 of 1975, by
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The two questions answered by the
High Court relate to the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 which are:
(1) Whether dry cell batteries manufactured by the assessees are
exigible to tax under Entry No. 3 or Entry No. 38 of the First Schedule to
H the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957?
r
y
\ . '
UNION CARBIDE(I) LTD. v. STATE(J.S. VERMA,J.]
787
(2) Whether the arc carbons manufactured by the assessees are A
. ;;r:
exigible to tax under Entry No. 4 or Entry No. 38 of the First Schedule to
the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957?
The Tribunal held that the "dry cell batteries" are taxaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.