Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11486-11487 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.30398-30399 of 2011)
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
... RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.
Leave granted.
2.
These
appeals
have
been
preferred
by
the
appellants-
court
allowed
the
appeals
preferred
by
the
respondent-
2
cell phones and their accessories. During the year 2005-06, the
Company had made sales of 1,07,2679 pieces of cell phones with
battery chargers and had paid tax at the rate of 4% on the sale
value of battery chargers, the rate at which the tax on the sale
of cell phone was paid. The value of the each of the battery
charger if separately taken was to be Rs.120/- per piece as
quoted
by
the
respondent-Company
itself.
It
comes
to
of
8.5%
was
calculated
and
it
came
to
said
amount
amounting
to
Rs.21,25,491/-.
Further
penalty
Rs.120/amount
to
per
of
tax
be
1807725
piece
at
came
the
pieces,
to
rate
of
the
value
at
the
Rs.21,69,27,000/-.
Rs.8.5%
was
rate
of
Differential
calculated
to
be
which
came
to
Rs.25,24,175/-.
Further,
penalty
under
came
to
Rs.1,00,96,750/-
and
total
demand
raised
vide
Page2
3
order
of
Assessing
Authority
for
that
year
had
been
Rs.3,10,59,720/-.
Respondent-Company filed reply on 26th November, 2008, 24th
5.
December, 2008 and 9th January, 2009, inter alia, stating that
the product was being sold as mobile/cellular phone under a
single
solo
pack
unit
and
was
covered
under
Entry
No.60
of
charged
was
for
handsets.
It
was
also
stated
by
the
being
charger
is
deposited.
an
The
accessory
respondent
to
the
stated
main
that
product
the
that
battery
is
mobile
phone.
6.
2nd March 2009 held that the battery charger being a separate
item was liable to be taxed at general rate i.e. 12.5% and not
at concessional rate applicable to the cell phones inter alia on
the premise that the respondents were selling more than one
product which were exigible in different rate of tax in a single
pack
and
had
themselves
admitted
the
battery
charger
as
The
Assessing
Authority
further
observed
that
even
Page3
4
7.
The
under
Section
respondent
62(1)
filed
of
the
Appeal
Act
Nos.
before
804
the
and
805/2009-10
Deputy
Excise
&
of
the
cell
phone.
The
Tribunal
further
held
that
the
penalty under Section 53 of the Act should not have been imposed
and thus set aside the same viz. Rs.85,01,964/- for the year
2005-06 and Rs.1,00,96,750/- for the year 2006-07.
8.
The
respondent,
against
the
above
concurrent
finding
filed VAT Appeal Nos.54 & 55 of 2010 (O&M) before the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. By the impugned orders
dated 17th November, 2010, the Division Bench of the High Court
allowed the appeals holding that the battery charger is a part
of the composite package of cell phone.
9.
counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
respondent
Page4
5
10.
charger not being independently sold, was sold with the cell
phone in same packing and hence tax chargeable was at the rate
of 4% and proper tax had been paid and, therefore, there was no
good ground to charge tax at the rate of 12.5% on sale of those
battery
chargers
which
are
free
with
the
cell
phone
in
the
for
the
composite package.
11.
On
the
other
hand,
according
to
the
counsel
but
merely
an
accessory
thereof
even
as
per
the
all
residuary
items
not
falling
in
any
of
the
an integral part of the cell phone and the cell phone cannot be
operated without the charger and when any person comes for cell
Page5
6
phone, he purchases the cell phone and then automatically takes
away
the
charger
for
which
no
separate
money
is
charged.
Entry
60(6)(g)
of
Schedule
of
the
Act
does
not
mention
Sub-heading
Code 8525
Electrical
machinery
and
equipment
and
parts
thereof,
radio-telegraphs
sound recorders
and reproducers
and
parts
and
accessories
of
such articles.
Transmission
apparatus
for
radiotelephony,
radiobroadcasting
or television,
whether or not
incorp.
Sub-sub
heading
Code
8525.20.17
Transmission
apparatus
incorporating
reception
apparatus
Tariff
No.8525.20.17
Cellular
Telephones
to
cellular
telephone
and
not
the
accessories.
The
7
16.
The
Assessing
Authority,
Appellate
Authority
and
the
charged directly from the other means also like laptop without
employing
nothing
the
but
battery
an
charger,
accessory
to
implying
the
thereby,
mobile
phone.
that
The
it
is
Tribunal
battery
mobile
phones
charger
and
is
also
compatible
many
to
models
many
of
models
Nokia
make
of
Nokia
battery
phone,
imparting
various
levels
of
effectiveness
and
rules
for
interpretation
of
import
tariff
reads
as
follows:
3(b) mixtures, composite goods consisting of
different materials or made up of different
components, and goods put up in sets for retail
sale, which cannot be classified by reference to
(a), shall be classified as if they consisted of
Page7
8
the material of component which gives them their
essential character, insofar as this criterion is
applicable.
It
was
contended
that
composite
goods
being
used
be
package
composite
good
of
for
cell
the
phone
charger
purpose
of
will
not
interpretation
make
it
of
the
In
M/s.
Annapurna
Carbon
Industries
Co.
vs.
State
of
Andhra Pradesh, (1976)2 SCC 273, this Court while examining the
question
projectors
whether
Arc
or
whether
Carbon
comes
is
an
under
accessory
other
to
cinema
cinematography
Page8
9
19.
In
Assessing
view
of
the
Authority,
aforesaid
Appellate
facts,
Authority
we
and
find
the
that
the
Tribunal
.............................J.
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]
.............................J.
[MADAN B. LOKUR]
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 17, 2014.
Page9