{"id":38034,"date":"2008-10-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008"},"modified":"2016-10-25T04:31:16","modified_gmt":"2016-10-24T23:01:16","slug":"ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Travancore Titanium vs The Commissioner Of Commercial … on 7 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.Travancore Titanium vs The Commissioner Of Commercial … on 7 October, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nST.Appl..No. 4 of 2006()\n\n\n1. M\/S.TRAVANCORE TITANIUM\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER\n\n Dated :07\/10\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n              H.L. DATTU, C.J. & A.K. BASHEER, J.\n\n                  -------------------------------------\n\n                           S.T. Appeal No.4 of 2006\n\n                  ------------------------------------\n              Dated this, the 7th day of October, 2008\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
H.L. DATTU, C.J.\n<\/p>\n
              This Sales Tax Appeal is directed against the order passed by<\/p>\n
the   Commissioner     of    Commercial     Taxes,    Thiruvananthapuram      in<\/p>\n
No.C3.12224\/04\/CT dated 26.10.2005.\n<\/p>\n
              2. The appellant is a company. It is engaged in the manufacture<\/p>\n
and sale of titanium dioxide through “sulphate process”.         The main raw<\/p>\n
materials are Ilmenite (mixed oxide of titanium) ferrous iron and ferric iron<\/p>\n
for the production of Titanium Dioxide pigment. Titanium dioxide (TiO2) is<\/p>\n
used in the manufacture of paints, plastics, paper, printing and rubber<\/p>\n
products etc.<\/p>\n
              3. The manufacturing process of Titanium dioxide pigments is<\/p>\n
as under:-\n<\/p>\n
       Titanium dioxide pigments are generally produced commercially<\/p>\n
according to the prior art processes by the so-called “sulfate process” in which<\/p>\n
a titaniferous material, such as a titaniferous iron ore, ore concentrate or a<\/p>\n
titanium slag is heated at elevated temperatures, with concentrated sulphuric<\/p>\n
acid to form a porous cake, sometimes referred to in the art as “digestion<\/p>\n
S.T.A.No.4\/06                                – 2 –<\/span><\/p>\n
     cake”. The digestion cake is allowed to cure so as to effect maximum<\/p>\n
     recoveries of titanium values upon dissolving.         After curing, the cake is<\/p>\n
     dissolved in water or weak acid, with agitation to form a solution of titanium<\/p>\n
     sulfate and iron sulfates.      The ferric sulfate values in the solution are<\/p>\n
     converted to ferrous sulfate by the addition, to the solution, of a reducing<\/p>\n
     agent, such as scrap iron with or without antimony oxide. The solution is then<\/p>\n
     clarified by settling and filtration to remove all of the solid material contained<\/p>\n
     in the solution with minimum loss of TiO.sub.2. Following clarification, the<\/p>\n
     solution is then usually subjected to a crystallization step to remove most of<\/p>\n
     the ferrous sulfate values as copperas, i.e., FeSO.sub.4.sup. 7H.sub.2.O.<\/p>\n
     After crystallization, the titanium sulfate solution is subjected to concentration<\/p>\n
     to remove water from the solution. This is accomplished by evaporation in<\/p>\n
     concentrators which operate under vacuum and at elevated temperatures.<\/p>\n
     Concentration is continued until the specific gravity of the solution is at least<\/p>\n
     1.5 with a TiO.sub.2 content of at least 200 grams per liter and preferably<\/p>\n
     from 250-300 grams per liter. The concentrated titanium sulfate solution is<\/p>\n
     then converted by hydrolysis, from the soluble state into insoluble TiO.sub.2<\/p>\n
     hydrate and in general this change is effected through dilution of the<\/p>\n
     concentrated titanium sulfate-ferrous sulfate solution with H.sub.2 O at<\/p>\n
S.T.A.No.4\/06                              – 3 –<\/span><\/p>\n
     elevated temperatures.       Thus a predetermined amount of titanium<\/p>\n
     sulfate-ferrous sulfate solution having a TiO.sub.2 content of at least 200<\/p>\n
     grams per liter is preheated at a temperature of at least 90 degree C. and added<\/p>\n
     at a predetermined rate, with agitation, to clear water at substantially the same<\/p>\n
     temperature and in the ratio of 3-19 parts solution to one part water. During<\/p>\n
     subsequent boiling, the precipitated TiO.sub.2 forms initially as colloidal<\/p>\n
     particles, which subsequently floc to produce a filterable TiO.sub.2 hydrate<\/p>\n
     containing from 30 percent to 36 percent solids.          High quality titanium<\/p>\n
     dioxide pigments may be produced from this particular type of prior art<\/p>\n
     hydrate when the hydrate is produced from a concentrated and crystallized<\/p>\n
     titanium sulfate solution.\n<\/p>\n
                   4. Calcination is the final process in the production of Titanium<\/p>\n
     dioxide of either antase grade or rutile grade pigment.         Superior Grade<\/p>\n
     Kerosene Oil (SKO) is used in the calciners as fuel.\n<\/p>\n
                   5. The appellant is a registered dealer, registered under the<\/p>\n
     provisions of Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, hereinafter for the sake of<\/p>\n
     brevity referred to as KGST Act. The appellant had applied before the<\/p>\n
     Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 59A<\/p>\n
     of KGST Act read with Rule 31D of the Rules, inter alia requesting to clarify<\/p>\n
S.T.A.No.4\/06                              – 4 –<\/span><\/p>\n
     whether they can issue Form 18 declarations for the purchase of Kerosene Oil<\/p>\n
     used in the manufacture of Titanium dioxide. In the application filed it was<\/p>\n
     stated, that, the applicant is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale<\/p>\n
     of Titanium dioxide. Apart from producing the product literature on the<\/p>\n
     production of Titanium dioxide, they had briefly stated the process of<\/p>\n
     manufacture\/production of the product.        According to them, the Ground<\/p>\n
     Ilmenite is digested with hot concentrated Sulphuric acid. The hot cake<\/p>\n
     obtained is extracted in water, clarified and supernatant liquid concentrated<\/p>\n
     and the same is precipitated to get Titanium Dioxide cakes, which is washed<\/p>\n
     free of iron salts.    This cake is incinerated in calciner (kiln) using Super<\/p>\n
     Kerosene Oil. Therefore, the sale of industrial raw material, namely kerosene<\/p>\n
     by a registered dealer to the appellant for use in the production of the finished<\/p>\n
     product namely, Titanium dioxide inside the State for sale is taxable at the<\/p>\n
     concessional rate of tax at 3% on production of declaration to that effect from<\/p>\n
     the appellant who uses the same for the declared purpose as provided under<\/p>\n
     Section 5(3) of the KGST Act.\n<\/p>\n
                    6. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by his order<\/p>\n
     No.C3.1224\/04\/CT dated 26.10.2005 has clarified, that, Form 18 cannot be<\/p>\n
     issued for purchase of Kerosene oil used as fuel in the manufacture of<\/p>\n
S.T.A.No.4\/06                               – 5 –<\/span><\/p>\n
     Titanium Dioxide. According to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,<\/p>\n
                             “In the instant case, the role of kerosene is for<\/p>\n
                the process of calcination. Even according to the petitioner,<\/p>\n
                the contributing factor of kerosene is heat energy. In other<\/p>\n
                words, the function is that of the fuel.  Thus, Kerosene in<\/p>\n
                this case, cannot be treated as a raw material used in the<\/p>\n
                manufacture of goods, but as aid in the manufacture of<\/p>\n
                goods”.\n<\/p>\n
                    7. The appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid clarification<\/p>\n
     is before us in this appeal, inter alia requesting to set aside the order passed<\/p>\n
     by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 26.10.2005 and to declare<\/p>\n
     that the appellant is entitled to issue Form 18 declaration for the purchase of<\/p>\n
     Kerosene Oil used in the manufacture of Titanium Dioxide.<\/p>\n
                    8. Dr.Mohammed Kutty, learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
     argues that the Kerosene Oil is a major and essential item of industrial raw<\/p>\n
     material which is used in the Kiln without which the production of end<\/p>\n
     product is impossible and therefore, applying the functional test the kerosene<\/p>\n
     oil is a raw material used in the manufacture of finished product, viz. titanium<\/p>\n
     dioxide. The learned counsel further contends, that, the Commissioner of<\/p>\n
     Commercial Taxes without considering the manufacturing process explained<\/p>\n
     by the appellant ought not to have concluded that the kerosene oil cannot be<\/p>\n
S.T.A.No.4\/06                             – 6 –<\/span><\/p>\n
     treated as a raw material in the manufacture of finished product. The learned<\/p>\n
     senior counsel would further contend, that, the Commissioner of Commercial<\/p>\n
     Taxes has placed reliance on irrelevant material, namely, the notification<\/p>\n
     issued by the State Government, SRO No.1091\/99, which has no bearing on<\/p>\n
     the issue involved. The learned counsel in support of this contention, heavily<\/p>\n
     relies on the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Collector of<\/p>\n
     Central Excise vs. Ballapur Industries Ltd.,<\/a> 186 ITR 244, the decision of<\/p>\n
     this Court in the case of P.Narendra Menon vs. State of Kerala<\/a> 2007(2)<\/p>\n
     KLT SN 68, the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Phelps and<\/p>\n
     Co. (Pvt) Ltd. vs. Board of Revenue, West Bengal, 20 STC 511, the<\/p>\n
     decision of the Apex Court in Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. etc.<\/p>\n
     vs. Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara, 2001(2) SCC 511, Bajaj Tempo<\/p>\n
     Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,<\/a> 196 ITR               188, Periyar and<\/p>\n
     Parekanni Rubbers Ltd. vs. State of Kerala,<\/a> (2008) 13 VST 538.<\/p>\n
                   9.  The learned counsel for the Revenue ably justifies the<\/p>\n
     impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The<\/p>\n
     learned counsel would contend, that, since Kerosene Oil is used only as fuel<\/p>\n
     for the purpose of Calcination, it cannot be said that Kerosene oil is used in<\/p>\n
     the manufacture of finished product. The learned counsel has produced lot of<\/p>\n
S.T.A.No.4\/06                              – 7 –<\/span><\/p>\n
     product literature in support of his contention and further relies on the<\/p>\n
     observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Coastal Chemicals Ltd.<\/p>\n
     vs. Commercial Tax Officer, A.P. and others<\/a>. (2000) 117 STC 12.<\/p>\n
                   10. In our opinion, having heard the learned counsels for the<\/p>\n
     parties, the one and the only issue that requires to be considered is, whether<\/p>\n
     the appellant is entitled to issue Form 18 declaration forms for the purpose of<\/p>\n
     purchase of kerosene oil which is used as a fuel for the process of calcination<\/p>\n
     in the kiln used in the production of finished product, namely, Titanium<\/p>\n
     Dioxide.\n<\/p>\n
                   11.   We need to start our discussion on this legal issue by<\/p>\n
     referring to charging provision under the Act and the provision which<\/p>\n
     provides for concessional rate of tax.\n<\/p>\n
                   12. Section5 (1) of the Act is the charging provision under the<\/p>\n
     Act. It provides that every dealer, other than a casual trader or agent of a<\/p>\n
     non-resident dealer, whose total turnover for a year is not less than two lakh<\/p>\n
     rupees and every casual trader or agent of a non-resident, whatever be his total<\/p>\n
     turnover for the year, shall pay tax on his taxable turnover for that year.<\/p>\n
                   13. Section 5(3) of the Act provides for concessional rate of tax<\/p>\n
     under certain circumstances. The said provision reads as under.<\/p>\n
S.T.A.No.4\/06                            – 8 –<\/span><\/p>\n
                    “5(3) (i).    Notwithstanding anything contained in<\/p>\n
             sub-section (1), the tax payable by a dealer in respect of<\/p>\n
             any sale of industrial raw materials, component parts,<\/p>\n
             containers or packing materials which are liable to tax at a<\/p>\n
             rate higher than three per cent when sold to any industrial<\/p>\n
             unit for use in the production of finished products inside the<\/p>\n
             State for sale or for packing of such finished products inside<\/p>\n
             the State for sale, as the case may be, shall be at the rate of<\/p>\n
             three per cent on the taxable turnover relating to such<\/p>\n
             industrial raw materials, component parts, containers or<\/p>\n
             packing materials, as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n
                    Provided that the provisions of this clause shall not<\/p>\n
             apply to any sale unless the dealer selling the goods<\/p>\n
             furnishes to the assessing authority in the prescribed<\/p>\n
             manner a declaration duly filled in and signed in by the<\/p>\n
             dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the<\/p>\n
             prescribed particulars in the prescribed form.\n<\/p>\n
                    (ii). Where any dealer, after purchasing any goods<\/p>\n
             by furnishing a declaration as mentioned in the proviso to<\/p>\n
             clause (i), fails to make use of the same for the purpose for<\/p>\n
             which the declaration was furnished, he shall be liable to<\/p>\n
             pay the tax that would have been payable by him, had the<\/p>\n
             declaration not been furnished, less the tax, if any, paid by<\/p>\n
             him and the same shall be levied and collected as if it is a<\/p>\n
             tax due from him.”.\n<\/p>\n
S.T.A.No.4\/06                              – 9 –<\/span><\/p>\n
                  14. Section 5(3) commence with a non obstante clause. The<\/p>\n
     section speaks of tax payable by a dealer notwithstanding sub-section (1) of<\/p>\n
     Section 5. The main ingredients of the sub-section are, the sale must be in<\/p>\n
     respect of industrial raw material, component parts, containers or packing<\/p>\n
     materials; they should be liable to pay higher rate of tax than 3%; the sale<\/p>\n
     must be to an industrial unit;        the said unit must use the purchased<\/p>\n
     commodity\/commodities in the production of finished product; the sale of<\/p>\n
     the finished product must be inside the State.        If these conditions are<\/p>\n
     cumulatively complied, the tax payable by the dealer shall be at 3% on the<\/p>\n
     taxable turnover relating to such industrial raw materials, component parts,<\/p>\n
     containers or packing materials. The proviso appended to the sub-section<\/p>\n
     imposes yet another condition, namely, that the sub-section shall not apply<\/p>\n
     unless the selling dealer furnishes Form 18 declaration obtained from the<\/p>\n
     purchasing dealer to the assessing authority. The purpose and object of this<\/p>\n
     sub-section appears to be to encourage industries to procure the raw materials,<\/p>\n
     component parts, containers or packing materials at a concessional rate of tax,<\/p>\n
     so that the cost of production of the finished product would be less and the<\/p>\n
     industrial unit would be in a better position to compete in the market by<\/p>\n
     reducing the sale price of the finished product.\n<\/p>\n
S.T.A.No.4\/06                             – 10 –<\/span><\/p>\n
                   15. In the instant case, we are concerned with only “industrial<\/p>\n
     raw material”. The said expression is not defined in the Act. Therefore,<\/p>\n
     reference can be made to the dictionary meaning and also how the courts have<\/p>\n
     understood this expression. The expression “industrial raw material” is used<\/p>\n
     to denote raw materials used for industrial purpose.       According to the<\/p>\n
     dictionary meaning, it means something which is used for manufacturing or<\/p>\n
     producing the goods. The ordinary common sense understanding of it is that,<\/p>\n
     it is something from which another new or distinct commodity is produced.<\/p>\n
                   16.  The Supreme Court has explained the meaning of this<\/p>\n
     expression. In the case of Collector of Central Excise vs. Ballapur<\/p>\n
     Industries Ltd.,<\/a> (1990) 186 STC 244, it is stated, an input or ingredient,<\/p>\n
     getting burnt up or consumed in the chemical process of manufacture is raw<\/p>\n
     material for the end product. The ingredient should go into the making of the<\/p>\n
     end product in the sense that without the ingredient, the presence of the end<\/p>\n
     product is rendered impossible.     In Kothari Industrial Corporation vs.<\/p>\n
     C.C.E., 1998 (36) ELT 721, it is observed that the term refers to all<\/p>\n
     ingredients used in the manufacturing stream and which lose their identity in<\/p>\n
     the manufacturing process. [Emphasis is supplied by us].<\/p>\n
                   17. Having seen the meaning of the expression ‘Raw material’<\/p>\n
S.T.A.No.4\/06                              – 11 –<\/span><\/p>\n
     the other important ingredient that requires to be satisfied for the purpose of<\/p>\n
     claiming concessional rate of tax is that, the industrial raw material sold must<\/p>\n
     be “used in the production of finished products inside the State for sale”.<\/p>\n
     Therefore, the use of the raw material must be in the production of finished<\/p>\n
     product. That only means raw materials must be used in the production of<\/p>\n
     finished products. The word ‘production’ is explained by the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
     the case of Chrestien Mica Industries Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and another,<\/p>\n
     125 STC 212, means, amongst other things, that which is produced; a thing<\/p>\n
     that results from any action, a process or effort, a product of human activity<\/p>\n
     or effort.\n<\/p>\n
                    18. The Supreme Court in C.I.T. vs. N.C. Budhaiaja and Co.<\/p>\n
     AIR<\/a> 1993 SC 2529, has observed that the word “production” has a wider<\/p>\n
     connotation than the word “manufacture”. While every manufacture can be<\/p>\n
     characterised as production,       every production need not amount to<\/p>\n
     manufacture.     Therefore, the term raw materials would include materials<\/p>\n
     which physically enter into the composition of the finished product.<\/p>\n
                    19.  The expression ‘use’ is not defined in the Act.       In its<\/p>\n
     ordinary meaning, the word ‘use’ is the act of employing a thing putting into<\/p>\n
     action or service; employing for or applying to a given purpose.<\/p>\n
S.T.A.No.4\/06                               – 12 –<\/span><\/p>\n
                    20.   The main raw material for the production of Titanium<\/p>\n
     Dioxide pigment are Ilmenite (a mixed oxide of titanium) ferrous iron and<\/p>\n
     ferric iron.   The product literature produced by the appellant before the<\/p>\n
     Commissioner of Commercial Taxes illustrates the stages in the production of<\/p>\n
     titanium dioxide. The first stage is, Ilmenite is reacted with Sulphuric acid in<\/p>\n
     reinforced concrete tanks called Digesters; Exothermic reaction is initiated by<\/p>\n
     the heat of dilution of the acid with water and porous cake is formed. The<\/p>\n
     mass in the solid form is dissolved in dilute sulphuric acid to get titanium in<\/p>\n
     solution as titanium oxy-sulphate along with other metallic ingredients in<\/p>\n
     Ilmenite as their sulphate. After this digestion process, the next is known as<\/p>\n
     “Reduction”. At this stage, the liquor is reduced using scrap iron, when the<\/p>\n
     ferric iron gets completely reduced to ferrous state. The third stage is known<\/p>\n
     as ‘clarification’. In this stage, the black liquor is clarified, concentrated and<\/p>\n
     boiled by injecting steam to precipitate the titanium content as hydrated<\/p>\n
     titania. Then, the other stages are crystallisation, hydrolysis and filtration.<\/p>\n
     During these stages, the hydrated titania is filtered over drum type rotary<\/p>\n
     vacuum filters. Any ferric iron still present is reduced to ferrous iron by<\/p>\n
     leaching the pulp with dilute sulphuric acid. It is washed free of iron and<\/p>\n
     other impurities.     The last stage is “calcination”. During this stage, the<\/p>\n
S.T.A.No.4\/06                               – 13 –<\/span><\/p>\n
     huydrated titania is calcined in a rotary kiln and superior kerosene oil is used<\/p>\n
     in the calciners as fuel and thereafter is cooled in rotating coolers and<\/p>\n
     de-agglomerated in pendulum mills to very fine particles. The fine white<\/p>\n
     powder is packed and sold in HDPE bags as Titanium Dioxide, which is<\/p>\n
     mainly used in the manufacture of paints.        Therefore, the use for which<\/p>\n
     superior kerosene is put in the manufacture of Titanium dioxide is as fuel in<\/p>\n
     the calciners.\n<\/p>\n
                   21. In the instant case, super kerosene oil that is purchased by<\/p>\n
     the appellant would only assist the manufacturing process, but does not<\/p>\n
     physically enter into the composition of finished product, namely Titanium<\/p>\n
     dioxide.    Therefore, kerosene oil does not come within the definition of raw<\/p>\n
     material under Section 5(3) of the KGST Act. The Kerosene oil used by the<\/p>\n
     appellant as fuel for the purpose of calcination cannot be said to have been<\/p>\n
     used as a raw material in the production of finished product for sale, viz.<\/p>\n
     Titanium dioxide, but only as an aid in the production of finished product.<\/p>\n
     It is relevant at this stage to notice the observations made by Apex Court in<\/p>\n
     the case of Coastal Chemicals Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer, A.P. and<\/p>\n
     others<\/a>, 117 STC 12. That was a case where the appellant had purchased<\/p>\n
     natural gas from the Oil and Natural Gas Commission. The appellant used the<\/p>\n
S.T.A.No.4\/06                               – 14 –<\/span><\/p>\n
     natural gas as fuel for the manufacture of paper and paper products. The<\/p>\n
     applicant claimed that it was entitled to the concessional rate of tax that was<\/p>\n
     provided for under Section 5B(1) of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.<\/p>\n
     The said provision is more or less akin to the provision under consideration in<\/p>\n
     the instant case.\n<\/p>\n
                   The argument that was advanced before the court was that the<\/p>\n
     natural gas is “consumable” within the meaning of the aforesaid provision and<\/p>\n
     therefore, entitled to concessional rate of tax. The Apex Court while repelling<\/p>\n
     the aforesaid contention and after referring to the decision of the Apex Court<\/p>\n
     in Ballapur Industries Ltd.’s case, 186 ITR 244, has stated as under:<\/p>\n
                        “6.    The word “consumable” in the said<\/p>\n
                 provision takes colour from and must be read in the<\/p>\n
                 light of the words that are its neighbours, namely, “raw<\/p>\n
                 material”, “component part”, “sub-assembly part” and<\/p>\n
                 “intermediate part”: So read, it is clear that the word<\/p>\n
                 “consumables” therein refers only to material which is<\/p>\n
                 utilised as an input in the manufacturing process but is<\/p>\n
                 not identifiable in the final product by reason of the fact<\/p>\n
                 that it has got consumed therein. It is for this reason<\/p>\n
                 that “consumables” have been expressly referred to in<\/p>\n
                 the said provision, though they would fall within the<\/p>\n
                 broader scope of the words “raw materials”.<\/p>\n
S.T.A.No.4\/06                               – 15 –<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                        7. In the case of Thomas Stephen & Co. [1988]<\/p>\n
                 69 STC 320 (SC) relied upon in the impugned judgment,<\/p>\n
                 it was held that cashew shells used as fuel did not get<\/p>\n
                 consumed in the manufacture of other goods and that<\/p>\n
                 ‘consumption must be in the manufacture as raw<\/p>\n
                 material’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        8. To use the words of Thomas Stephen & Co.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                 [1988] 69 STC 320 (SC) the natural gas used by the<\/p>\n
                 appellant does “not tend to the making          of the end<\/p>\n
                 product”. It is not a ‘consumable’.”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   22. In the instant case also, Superior Kerosene Oil is not used<\/p>\n
     as an input in the use of production of finished product and it is not<\/p>\n
     identifiable in the final product and it is just used as a fuel in the calciners as<\/p>\n
     an aid in the production of finished product and therefore, would not answer<\/p>\n
     the description of the expression ‘raw material’.\n<\/p>\n
                   23. We have perused carefully the other case laws on which<\/p>\n
     reliance was placed by the learned Senior Counsel Dr.Mohammed Kutty.<\/p>\n
     In our opinion, none of the case laws has any bearing on the issue which has<\/p>\n
     come up for consideration in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                   24.      In view of the above discussion, in our view, the<\/p>\n
     Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is right while clarifying that the<\/p>\n
     appellant cannot use Form 18 declarations for purchase of Kerosene Oil used<\/p>\n
S.T.A.No.4\/06                             – 16 –<\/span><\/p>\n
     as a fuel in the manufacture of Titanium Dioxide. Therefore, the appeal<\/p>\n
     requires to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. No order as to costs.<\/p>\n
                                                                     Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                                               H.L.DATTU,
\n                                                             CHIEF JUSTICE.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                                              A.K. BASHEER,
\n                                                                   JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
     DK.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M\/S.Travancore Titanium vs The Commissioner Of Commercial … on 7 October, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ST.Appl..No. 4 of 2006() 1. M\/S.TRAVANCORE TITANIUM … Petitioner Vs 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, … Respondent For Petitioner :DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.) For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble the Chief Justice […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38034","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.Travancore Titanium vs The Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Travancore Titanium vs The Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-24T23:01:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Travancore Titanium vs The Commissioner Of Commercial … on 7 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-24T23:01:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3396,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Travancore Titanium vs The Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-24T23:01:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Travancore Titanium vs The Commissioner Of Commercial … on 7 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S.Travancore Titanium vs The Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Travancore Titanium vs The Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-24T23:01:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Travancore Titanium vs The Commissioner Of Commercial … on 7 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-24T23:01:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008"},"wordCount":3396,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008","name":"M\/S.Travancore Titanium vs The Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-24T23:01:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-travancore-titanium-vs-the-commissioner-of-commercial-on-7-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Travancore Titanium vs The Commissioner Of Commercial … on 7 October, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38034","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38034"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38034\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38034"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38034"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38034"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}