1 S.B. Sales Tax Revision No.1145/02 A.C.T.O.,Jodhpur vs. M/s Shanker Industries, Jodhpur Date of Order: 26.3.2007 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr. Sangeet Lodha for the petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Mehta for the respondent. The assessee is manufacturer of plastic bangles. He purchased the plastic-sheets, which according to the Assessing Authority, were the plastic-sheets of separate distinct and taxable commodity, whereas the assessee's contention was that the assessee purchased the scraps. The assessee's further contention was that a plastic-sheet even of the size of 5'x5' since was defective and, therefore, that was scrap only. It is submitted by the assessee that those scraps can be used for the manufacturing of bangles. The Assessing Authority held that the sheets are not scraps, therefore, imposed the penalty for not carrying the requisite documents along with the goods while transporting the goods. In substance, the contention of the revenue is that with the bills of the scraps, the assessee transported the fresh goods and thereby avoided the payment of tax and, therefore, was liable for the penalty. The assessment order dated 20.4.1995 was challenged by the assessee by preferring the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) which was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner(Appeals) vide 2 order dated 3.2.1998. The Deputy Commissioner(Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jodhpur held that from the documents produced by the assessee as well as from the perusal of the commodity, it appears that the goods were defective and, therefore, were scraps and, therefore, the goods were brought by the assessee on the basis of the valid documents and hence the penalty could not be imposed. The revenue preferred appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner(Appeals) dated 3.2.1998. The Tax Board upheld the finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vide judgment dated 1.4.2002. Hence this revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sheet measuring 5'x5' cannot be scrap. It is also submitted that the subsequent supply of the evidence by the assessee to prove the fact that the goods which were imported by the assessee were defective and were scraps, is of no relevance because at the time of the transportation, the goods were with the bills, showing the goods as scraps whereas from the perusal of the goods, the Assessing Authority found that the goods are fresh goods and not the scraps. The learned counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the scrap sheet may be of any measurement. If the sheet is defective then also it is scrap for other purpose. The assessee is manufacturer of plastic bangle for which a very small piece of sheet is required for manufacturing the bangle. It is also submitted that the order of the 3 Assessing Authority was self-contradictory inasmuch as that the Assessing Authority itself, while estimating the value of the goods, instead of valuing the goods as fresh sheets, calculated the cost of the goods by weight. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. In fact, basically the question raised by the revenue is about the nature of the goods imported by the assessee and for that the finding has been recorded by the Deputy Commissioner(Appeals) as well as the Tax Board in favour of assessee and, therefore, this finding of fact cannot be interfered in this revision. Apart from it, the Appellate Authority observed that from perusal of the goods as well as from the documents produced by the assessee, the assessee proved that the goods imported were defective and, therefore, they were scraps. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this revision and there same is hereby dismissed. ( PRAKASH TATIA ),J. mlt.