IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH STC No. 1 of 2008 Date of Order: 25.9.2009 Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana ...Applicant Versus M/s Elkay International Ltd and another ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Sunil Nehra, AAG, Haryana for the applicant. Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate, for the respondent. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR,J This order shall dispose of three cases i.e STC No.1,2 & 3 of 2008. Facts are being taken from STC No.1 of 2008. Revenue has approached this Court by filing an application under Section 42(2) (b) of Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1976 seeking a direction to the Haryana Tax Tribunal Chandigarh to refer the following questions of law for the determination of this Court as the Tribunal vide order dated 8.9.2006 (Annexure P.1) had declined the prayer made by the revenue: “a) Whether, on a true and proper interpretation of entry 35B of Notification No.SO.46/H.A20/73/S.15/96 dated STC No.1 of 2008 31.3.1996, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding the HDPE and LDPE granules manufactured and sold by the respondent are plastic goods falling under the said entry. b) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in relying upon the clarification dated 20.1.1993, Annexure P.5, to entry 35B of notification No.SO.46/H.A20/73/S.15/96 dated 31.3.1996.” The aforesaid questions came up for consideration before this Court in GSTR No.8 of 2003 titled Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh v. M/s S.K & Co. P Ltd, Faridabad decided on 17.3.2009 and both the questions have been answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Learned State counsel could not successfully dispute the correctness of the aforesaid view taken by the Division Bench in GSTR No.8 of 2003 nor he could distinguish the aforesaid judgment by pointing out any distinguishing features on facts of the instant case. Accordingly, the aforesaid questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and no reference would be necessary as the questions stands answered. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE 2 STC No.1 of 2008 (JASWANT SINGH) September 25, 2009 JUDGE Manoj/PKapoor 3