{"id":56422,"date":"2005-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005"},"modified":"2015-09-14T08:21:37","modified_gmt":"2015-09-14T02:51:37","slug":"tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005","title":{"rendered":"Tvl.Opera Arts Industries vs The Registrar on 8 July, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Tvl.Opera Arts Industries vs The Registrar on 8 July, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 08\/07\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.MARKANDEY KATJU, CHIEF JUSTICE        \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA    \n\nWrit Petition No. 29557 of 2003\n\nTvl.Opera Arts Industries\nRep. by its Proprietor R.M.Salam,\n32, Sadayappa Maistry Street, \nChennai - 600 001.                              ... Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Registrar,\n    The Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal,\n    Singaravelar Maligai, Rajaji Salai,\n    Chennai - 600 001.\n\n2. The Commercial Tax Officer,\n    Mannady (West) Assessment Circle, \n    191, NSC Bose Road, \n    Chennai - 600 001.                        ... Respondents\n\n\n        Petition  filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying\nfor the issue of a Writ of Certiorari for the reasons stated therein.\n\n!For Petitioner ...  Mr.S.Ramanathan\n\n^For Respondent - 2 ...  Mr.T.Ayyasamy \n                        Special Govt.  Pleader (Taxes)\n\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE         <\/p>\n
        This  writ  petition  has  been  filed  for  a  writ of certiorari for
\nquashing the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai  dated
\n18.03.2002 in T.C (R) No.151137 of 1999.\n<\/p>\n
        2.      Heard  the  learned  counsel  for the parties, and perused the
\nrecord.\n<\/p>\n
        3.      The petitioner is a dealer in Elastic  Rail  Clips,  which  he
\nmanufactures and sells to the Railways.  The elastic rail clip is a clip which
\nholds together  the  sleeper  and the rails in the track.  The petitioner is a
\nregistered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax,  and  Central  Sales
\nTax,  and  is an assessee on the file of the second respondent, the Commercial
\nTax Officer, Mannady (West) Assessment Circle, Chennai  (hereinafter  referred
\nto as the C.T.O.).\n<\/p>\n
        4.      For the assessment year 1995-96, the petitioner showed a total
\ntaxable  turnover of Rs.22,94,775\/- under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act
\n(hereinafter referred to as ‘the TNGST Act’).   The  petitioner  reported  the
\nabove turnover as taxable at 4% claiming the goods he sold to be forgings, and
\nhence as declared goods falling under Entry 4 (viii) of the Second Schedule to
\nthe TNGST Act.\n<\/p>\n
        5.      The C.T.O.   however called for the accounts of the petitioner
\nand after verifying them  observed  that  the  Sillico  Manganese  Steel  Rods
\npurchased  by  the  petitioner  as  raw  material  were  subjected  to various
\nprocesses and  then  supplied  to  the  Railways  as  a  different  commercial
\ncommodity viz.,  elastic  rail clips.  Hence the second respondent treated the
\nabove goods as falling under the general item under Entry 63  Part  D  of  the
\nFirst Schedule  to the TNGST Act taxable at 8%.  Since the goods were supplied
\nto the Railways i.e.  a Government Department, the  second  respondent  levied
\ntax  at  4%  but  also  levied  15%  surcharge,  5%  additional  surcharge and
\nadditional sales tax at 1.5%.  He also levied  penalty  of  Rs.37,881\/-  under
\nSection 12(3)(b) of the TNGST Act by order dated 20.3.1997.\n<\/p>\n
        6.      Against  that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the
\nAppellate Assistant Commissioner, II, Chennai disputing the levy of surcharge,
\nadditional surcharge, additional sales tax and penalty on the ground that  the
\nrail  clips  sold  by the petitioner were produced by a simple process of heat
\ntreating the special steel purchased by the petitioner and by bringing it into
\nthe shape of elastic rail clips by forging.   Hence  it  was  alleged  by  the
\npetitioner  that  the  railway  clips sold by it were nothing but forgings and
\nwere hence declared goods under Entry 4(viii) of the Second  Schedule  to  the
\nTNGST Act, and liable to pay sales tax only at 4% but no surcharge, additional
\nsurcharge,  additional  sales  tax  or penalty were leviable as the goods were
\ndeclared goods.  The Appellate Assistant Commissioner by  his  order  dated  2
\n1.7.97 partly  allowed  the  appeal by deleting the penalty of Rs.  37,88 1\/-,
\nbut he sustained the levy of surcharge, additional  surcharge  and  additional
\nsales  tax  by  holding that forging is one that requires further finishing to
\nmake it a final manufactured product.  He held that  the  Elastic  Rail  Clips
\nsold  by  the  petitioner do not require any further treatment for making it a
\nfinal product, and they are themselves the final product.\n<\/p>\n
        7.      Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a  second  appeal  before  the
\nSales  Tax  Appellate  Tribunal,  Chennai  disputing  the  levy  of surcharge,
\nadditional surcharge, and additional sales  tax.    Before  the  Tribunal  the
\nassessee  contended  that  the  product manufactured and sold by it was only a
\nproduct of iron and steel, and the name ‘elastic rail  clip’  is  a  misnomer.
\nHowever, the Tribunal by its order dated 24.9.98 dismissed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        8.      Against  that  order of the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner
\nfiled a Tax  Case  Revision  before  Tamil  Nadu  Taxation  Special  Tribunal,
\nChennai.   The petitioner mainly relied on the decision of the Larger Bench of
\nCEGAT, New Delhi reported in Sikka Heat Treatment  Centre  v.    Collector  of
\nCentral  Excise,  New  Delhi,  1996  (81)  E.L.T.628  (Tribunal)  in which the
\nTribunal has held that the rail clips are only forgings and not general goods.
\nHowever, the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal relied on  the  decision  of
\nthe Supreme  Court  reported  in Vasantham Foundry v.  Union of India, (Vol.99
\nSTC<\/a> 87) and held that the Elastic Rail Clips supplied as a finished product to
\nthe railways as per  its  specifications  and  drawings  after  completion  of
\npolishing and machining could not be classified as declared goods.\n<\/p>\n
        9.      Learned  counsel  for  the petitioner contended that the first
\nrespondent had failed to consider that the  petitioner  had  purchased  Silico
\nManganese  Steel  Rods  from  other  States  and the manufacturing activity is
\nnothing but twisting of the product into a required shape  by  heat  treatment
\nand of forging as specified by the Railways.  The elastic clips holds together
\nthe sleeper  and  the  rails  in  the railway track.  There is no machining or
\npolishing done in the above process.  Hence, it was contended that the finding
\nof the fir st respondent was not correct.\n<\/p>\n
        10.     Learned counsel for the petitioner contended  that  the  lower
\nauthorities  have  treated  the  rail  clips  as finished product for the sole
\nreason that there was a difference between raw materials and the  end  product
\nof  rail clips, but the lower authorities have failed to note that there was a
\nchange in the shape only b y heat treatment  and  forging  process  while  the
\nmaterials have  not  lost its original character.  It is alleged that the rail<\/p>\n
clips are only forgings as enumerated in Item 4 (viii) of the Second Schedule,
\nand hence are declared goods.  Hence  it  was  contended  that  no  surcharge,
\nadditional surcharge or additional sales tax is leviable.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   The  process  of  manufacture  of rail clips as mentioned in the
\ndecision of the Larger Bench of the CEGAT in Sikka Heat Treatment  Centre  Vs.
\nCollector of Central Excise, New Delhi, 1996 (81) ELT 628 is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        “The manufacture of rail clips starts with iron\/steel rods.  These are
\nfirst cut  into  required specific sizes of particular length.  The cut pieces
\nare then heated in a furnace to high temperature.  The red hot iron  rods  are
\nthen bent  on  bending  machines to give the required specific shape.  The red
\nhot pieces are forged in power press in the dies fitted in the press  and  are
\ndirectly dipped  in  oil  for quenching.  Then the pieces are taken out of the
\noil and are tempered in an  electrically  heated  tempering  furnace  to  give
\nstrength.   It  is  obvious  from  the  foregoing  that forging forms only one
\nintermediate process in a chain of various processes”.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  The short question in this case is whether as  contended  by  the
\nlearned  counsel  for the petitioner elastic rail clips sold by the petitioner
\nto the railways can be regarded as declared goods falling under entry  4(viii)
\nof the Second Schedule to the TNGST Act, 1959, which reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                ” 4- Iron and steel, that is to say, –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        (viii) discs, rings, forgings, and steel castings”<\/p>\n
        13.   The  question  therefore  is  whether  elastic rail clips can be
\nregarded as “forgings”.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  The  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  has  relied  on  the
\naforesaid decision  of  the  CEGAT  in  Sikka  Heat Treatment Centre Case.  In
\nparagraph – 7 of that decision the Tribunal observed:-\n<\/p>\n
                “??having  regard  to  the  technical  aspects,   departmental
\nunderstanding,  and  the  precedent legal pronouncements on the subject, it is
\nheld that rail clips will not fall for classification under  Item  68  CET  as
\ngoods  not  elsewhere specified in the tariff, and it is further held that the
\nrail clips, having regard to the process of  manufacture  involved,  would  be
\nmore  appropriately  classifiable  under  Item  26AA(ia)\/2  5(8) CET as pieces
\nroughly  shaped  for  forging  which  is  the  classification  determined  for
\nsimilarly  manufactured  forgings  by  the  Tribunal  in  the Aravali Forgings
\ndecision (supra) and which is also the classification for such goods  accepted
\nby  the  Department  in  the  instructions  issued  followed the Supreme Court
\ndecision in the TISCO case (supra)?..”\n<\/p>\n
        15.  The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that  the  lower
\nauthorities  have  treated the rail clips as general goods because there was a
\ndifference between the raw-materials and end-product viz., rail clips.  Since,
\na different commercial commodity has emerged the lower authorities  held  that
\nit should be treated as the item falling under the general entry.  The learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner further submitted that the lower authorities failed
\nto  note  that  there  was  change in shape only by heat treatment and forging
\nprocess, and the materials had not lost its original character.  Hence, it was
\ncontended that the rail clips sold by the  petitioner  are  only  forgings  as
\nenumerated  in  entry  4(viii) to the Second Schedule to the TNGST Act and are
\ndeclared goods and hence no surcharge or additional  surcharge  or  additional
\nsales tax could be levied.\n<\/p>\n
        16.   The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of
\nthe Supreme Court in Tata Iron and Steel Co.  Ltd.  Vs.  Union of India,  1988
\n(35) ELT  605.    The  issue  involved  in that decision was whether the steel
\nwheels, tyres and axles supplied by the appellant therein to the Railway  were
\nexcisable under  entry 26 AA as iron and steel products.  The Supreme Court in
\nthat decision observed:-\n<\/p>\n
                “A perusal of these items makes it  clear  that  forged  steel
\nproducts are  liable  to  duty  in  terms  of Tariff Item No.26AA.  It is also
\nbeyond dispute that forged steel goods with which we are  concerned  would  be
\ncovered  by  Tariff  Item No.26AA(ia) which includes forged or extruded shapes
\nand sections, not otherwise specified.  It is common ground that the appellant
\nis liable to pay excise duty on the said goods under Tariff Item  No.26AA(ia).
\nThe  dispute  in  this connection is what is the stage at which the said goods
\ncould be said to be forged iron and steel products as contemplated in the said
\nitem; whether they could be regarded as such as soon as  they  are  forged  or
\nafter  machining and polishing to remove the excess skin before being supplied
\nto the Indian Railways.  The stand of the appellant is that this machining and
\npolishing which is done in its workshop,  is  not  significant  character  and
\nextensive  precision machining and polishing has to be done by the railways at
\ntheir workshop before the wheels, tyres and axles supplied  by  the  appellant
\ncan be attached to the rolling stock.  The machining and polishing done in the
\nworkshop  of  the  appellant was only in the nature of shaping by removing the
\nsuperficial material to bring the  forged  items  up  to  with  the  Railways’
\nspecifications.   A  perusal of Item 26AA would show the excise duty on forged
\ngoods covered under the said entry, is  according  to  the  weight  should  be
\nmeasured  only  after  the polishing and machining at the appellant’s workshop
\nwas completed.  It is obvious that as a result of such machining and polishing
\nthere would be some loss in weight on account of excess skin removal.  It  was
\non  the other hand contended on behalf of the Revenue, that the forging of the
\ngoods was complete before the machining and polishing was done to  remove  the
\nexcess surface or excess skin.  It appears to us that the aforesaid contention
\nof the  appellant  deserves  to be accepted.  Even to prepare forged goods for
\nsupplying to the railway, it was essential that the goods should  comply  with
\nthe railway’s specifications and the excess steel on the surface or the excess
\nskin as it is called, would have to be removed for that purpose.  Moreover, as
\npointed  out  by  the  learned  single Judge of the Delhi High Court, in Metal
\nForgings Pvt.  Ltd.  & Another Vs.  Union of India and Others, 1985  (20)  ELT
\n280 (paragraph – 12):-\n<\/p>\n
                        “The   process   of  manufacture  of  forged  products
\nconsists of cutting of steel, pre-heating of material, heating and beating  of
\nsteel material  till  final  shaping  is  achieved.  The steel forging process
\ninvolves open forging and\/or upset forging process under which the product  is
\nmade with  the  help  of  dies.    Thereafter, the extra\/unwanted materials is
\nremoved by either trimming or by gas cutting or by skin cutting to achieve the
\nshape and section nearest to the forged steel product required  and  also  the
\nforging clearances specified in the standards by I.S.I.  or International.  It
\nis  conceded  by  the Government that forging would not cease to be forging by
\nprocesses like removal of superfluous extra skin of cast iron.\n<\/p>\n
                The  learned  Judge  has  further  pointed  out  in  the  next
\nparagraph  of  the  said  judgment  that the removal of extra\/unwanted surface
\nsteel by either trimming or by gas cutting or by skin cutting  of  the  forged
\nproducts  must  be  regarded  as  incidental  or  ancillary  to the process of
\nmanufacture.  This view is also consisted with the  definition  given  to  the
\nterm  “manufacture”  contained  in sub-Section (f) of Section 2 of the Central
\nExcise and Salt Act,  1944.    This  definition  shows  that  the  manufacture
\nincludes   any  process  incidental  or  ancillary  to  the  completion  of  a
\nmanufactured product.  We are, therefore, of the view that in respect  of  the
\nsaid  goods  the  weight  for  the  purpose  of levy of excise duty under Item
\n26AA(ia) should be taken after the machining and polishing is done  to  remove
\nthe  excess  surface  skin  and the contention of the appellant in this regard
\nmust be accepted”.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  The learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  also  relied  on  the
\nfollowing  observation  of  the  CEGAT  in  Sikka Heat Treatment Centre Case (
\nsupra):-\n<\/p>\n
                “Having  regard  to  the   technical   aspects,   departmental
\nunderstanding,  and  the  precedent legal pronouncements on the subject, it is
\nheld that the rail clips will not fall for classification under Item 68 CET as
\ngoods not elsewhere specified in the tariff, and it is further held  that  the
\nrail  clips,  having  regard  to the process of manufacture involved, would be
\nmore appropriately  classifiable  under  Item  26AA(ia)\/25(8)  CET  as  pieces
\nroughly shaped by forging”.\n<\/p>\n
        18.   Thus,  according  to  the  CEGAT  the rail clips supplied by the
\npetitioner to the railways  are  classifiable  as  pieces  roughly  shaped  by
\nforgings.   Hence,  it  is  contended  by  the  petitioner that the rail clips
\nsupplied by the petitioner are only forgings, and hence  taxable  under  entry
\n4(viii) of the Second Schedule to the TNGST Act as declared goods.\n<\/p>\n
        19.   On  the  other  hand,  learned  counsel  for  the department has
\nsubmitted that assessee purchases silico manganese steel rods and manufactures
\nthe elastic rail clips after  various  processes.    The  goods  sold  by  the
\nassessee were an altogether different commodity from its raw materials.  Hence
\nthey  would  fall  under  the  residual  entry\/item  63 of Part D of the First
\nSchedule to the TNGST Act.\n<\/p>\n
20.  It may be noted that under Section 14(iv)(viii) of the Central Sales  Tax
\nAct  discs,  rings, forgings and steel castings have been declared to be goods
\nof special importance in inter-state trade or  commerce.    Consequently,  the
\nrestrictions  imposed by Section 15 of the Act are applicable on the aforesaid
\ndeclared goods.\n<\/p>\n
        21.  Under Article 286(3) of the Constitution parliament is  empowered
\nin  relation to goods declared to be of special importance in interstate trade
\nor commerce to lay down restrictions and conditions subject to which any State
\nlaw may regulate the tax on sales or purchase of such declared  goods  in  the
\nState.  Accordingly, Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act declares a number
\nof  goods as goods of special importance in inter-state trade or commerce, and
\nSection 15 places certain restrictions on the tax payable on sale or  purchase
\nof declared  goods.  One of the restrictions imposed by Section 15 is that the
\ntax payable under the State Sales Tax Act in respect of any sale  or  purchase
\nof  such  declared  goods  shall  not  exceed 4% of the sale or purchase price
\nthereof.\n<\/p>\n
        22.  The contention of the petitioner is that the elastic  rail  clips
\nsold  by  it  to  the railways falls under Section 14(iv)(viii) of the Central
\nSales Tax Act, and  hence  sales  tax,  surcharge,  additional  surcharge  put
\ntogether should not exceed 4%.\n<\/p>\n
        23.   The  assessee purchases Silica Manganese Steel Rods out of which
\nelastic rail clips are manufactured and sold to the Railways.   These  elastic
\nrail  clips  are  used  for  holding together the sleeper and the rails on the
\nrailway track.  The steel rods purchased by the  assessee  are  cut  into  the
\nrequired sizes, heat treated, forged, dipped in oil for quenching, and twisted
\nto  manufacture  the  railway  clips  according  to  the specifications of the
\nrailways.  The elastic rail clip is  “S”  shaped  and  various  processes  are
\ninvolved to manufacture it.\n<\/p>\n
        24.  In our opinion, this entire process by which  the  steel  rod  is
\nconverted into  elastic  rail  clips  cannot be called forging.  We are of the
\nopinion that though forging may form only one intermediate process, the entire
\nchain of various processes involved in the manufacture of elastic  rail  clips
\ncannot be  called  forging.    An  elastic  rail  clip  is a separate distinct
\ncommodity known in the trade circle, and hence  it  cannot  be  classified  as
\n“forging”.\n<\/p>\n
        25.  As pointed out by the Supreme Court  in  the  case  of  Rajasthan
\nRoller Flour Mills Association Vs.  State of Rajasthan, (1993) 91 STC 408 “the
\nprovisions of Section 14 and 15 of the Act being restrictions upon the plenary
\npowers of the State legislature to levy tax on the sale\/purchase of goods must
\nbe construed  strictly.    In other words, the restrictions must be limited to
\nthe goods expressly mentioned and nothing more must be  read  into  it  except
\nwhat it says clearly”.  In the aforesaid decision the Supreme Court, held that
\nwhen  wheat  is  consumed  for  producing  flour  (atta) or maida or suji, the
\ncommodities obtained  are  different  commodities  from  wheat  and  they  are
\ndifferent   goods   commercially  speaking,  and  hence  not  declared  goods.
\nLikewise, rail clips manufactured from steel rods  through  various  processes
\nincluding forging cannot be treated as declared goods.\n<\/p>\n
        26.  In  the  case of Vasantham Foundry Vs.  Union of India, (1995) 99
\nSTC 87, a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court  had  occasion  to  consider
\nwhether  “cast iron casting” is declared goods falling under Section 14 of the
\nAct.  The Court held:-\n<\/p>\n
                “Therefore, in our view, “cast iron casting” in its  basic  or
\nrough form  must  be held to be “cast iron”.  But, if thereafter any machining
\nor polishing or any other process is done to the rough cast  iron  casting  to
\nproduce  things like pipes, man-hole covers or bends, these cannot be regarded
\nas “cast iron casting” in its primary or rough form, but products made out  of
\ncast iron  castings.    Such  products  cannot  be regarded as “cast iron” and
\ncannot be treated as “declared goods” under  Section  14(iv)  of  the  Central
\nSales Tax Act”.\n<\/p>\n
        27.   In  our opinion, what has been stated by the Supreme Court about
\ncast iron castings is applicable mutatis mutandis to forging as well.   Hence,
\nelastic  rail  clips  which was manufactured by the petitioner from steel rods
\nand supplied to the railways as a final product  cannot  be  characterised  as
\nforging.\n<\/p>\n
        28.   In our opinion, the reliance placed on the decision of the CEGAT
\nin Sikka Heat Treatment Centre Case (supra) is misconceived.  In that case the
\nTribunal for the purpose of levy of excise duty held that elastic  rail  clips
\nshould  be  considered as “pieces roughly shaped by forging”, one of the items
\nenumerated under item 26 AA(ia)\/25(8) of CET.  It is pertinent  to  note  that
\nunder  item  26 AA(ia)\/25(8) various products were enumerated and the Tribunal
\nfound the elastic rail clips as answering the description of  “pieces  roughly
\nshaped by  forging”.    In  our  opinion,  the decision of the CEGAT cannot be
\nextended to a sales tax law wherein the object is not to tax the substance but
\nto tax the products manufactured out of the substance,  vide  State  of  Tamil
\nNadu Vs.   Pyarelal  Malhothra,  AIR  1976 SC 800.  At any event we are not in
\nagreement with the view taken by the CEGAT in the aforesaid decision.\n<\/p>\n
        29.  The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of  Tata  Iron  and
\nSteel Company  Limited Vs.  Union of India, 1988 (35) ELT 605 SC also does not
\nhelp the assessee.  The Supreme Court in that  case  found  that  the  product
\nsupplied  by  the  manufacturer  therein,  namely,  wheels  and axles required
\nfurther processing at the hands of the railways to make them  final  products.
\nHence, the ratio of that decision is not applicable to the present case, where
\nthe  final  manufactured product sold to the Southern Railways was in ready to
\nuse condition without any need for further processing.   It  is  pertinent  to
\nnote  that  in  Section  14  of  the  Act, “forgings”, vide Clause (viii), and
\n“wheels and axles”, vide Clause (xiv) are  shown  in  two  different  entries,
\nthereby  making  it abundantly clear that “forgings” in its basic form and the
\nfinal forged products such as wheels, axles, etc., ar e  different  commercial
\ncommodities for the purposes of sales tax.\n<\/p>\n
        30.   It  may also be mentioned that the decision of the Supreme Court
\nin the case of Tata Iron and Steel Company (supra) was considered by  a  three
\nJudges  Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Pefco Foundry Chemcials Ltd.
\nVs.  Collector of Central Excise, Pune, 1993 Supp.  (1 )  SCC  74.    In  that
\ncase, the Supreme Court found that the decision in Tata Iron and Steel Company
\nCase  (supra)  was  rendered on the basis of an admission made by the railways
\nthat what was supplied was in rough machined or forged condition.   The  Court
\nheld  that  “Cylinder  liner”  manufactured  by  the  manufacturer out of iron
\ncasting was not mere iron casting and it was identifiable as a  machine  part.
\nHence,  the decision in Tata Iron and Steel Company Case (supra) does not help
\nthe assessee.  Hence, in our opinion, elastic rail clip manufactured and  sold
\nby the assessee cannot be considered as a “declared goods”.\n<\/p>\n
        31.   In  view  of the above, there is no force in this writ petition,
\nand it is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
Pv\/sm <\/p>\n
Copy to:-\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Registrar,
\nThe Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal,
\nSingaravelar Maligai, Rajaji Salai,
\nChennai – 600 001.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Commercial Tax Officer,
\nMannady (West) Assessment Circle,
\n191, NSC Bose Road,
\nChennai – 600 001.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Tvl.Opera Arts Industries vs The Registrar on 8 July, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08\/07\/2005 CORAM The Hon’ble Mr.MARKANDEY KATJU, CHIEF JUSTICE and The Hon’ble Mr.Justice F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA Writ Petition No. 29557 of 2003 Tvl.Opera Arts Industries Rep. by its Proprietor R.M.Salam, 32, Sadayappa Maistry Street, Chennai […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-56422","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTvl.Opera Arts Industries vs The Registrar on 8 July, 2005 - 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\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tvl.Opera Arts Industries vs The Registrar on 8 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-14T02:51:37+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tvl.Opera Arts Industries vs The Registrar on 8 July, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-14T02:51:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005\"},\"wordCount\":3643,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005\",\"name\":\"Tvl.Opera Arts Industries vs The Registrar on 8 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-14T02:51:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tvl.Opera Arts Industries vs The Registrar on 8 July, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Tvl.Opera Arts Industries vs The Registrar on 8 July, 2005 - 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\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tvl.Opera Arts Industries vs The Registrar on 8 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-14T02:51:37+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tvl.Opera Arts Industries vs The Registrar on 8 July, 2005","datePublished":"2005-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-14T02:51:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005"},"wordCount":3643,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005","name":"Tvl.Opera Arts Industries vs The Registrar on 8 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-14T02:51:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-opera-arts-industries-vs-the-registrar-on-8-july-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tvl.Opera Arts Industries vs The Registrar on 8 July, 2005"}]},{"@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\/56422","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=56422"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56422\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56422"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56422"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56422"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}