f.

kt - ñ1.II 1'R3I,

1-23—f, rrr,

1. 7qTTcfff (3ic'1) 7I 2. 141Fi1cp z

[cpigctj.l, 1—cci1, 'iI'.l

, 1. 31'IIel T1T - 125/2014/sI 2. B1T - 126/2014/vI'

3. 314flel E1T - 127 2014 4. 3iLIkI BTF - 128/2014/19

ril1

5 3rJ(j - 592/2014/1Lj 6. 31e1 T1T - 593/2014/ii 7. 31'-flei flT - 594/2014/i 8. 34LfQ1 T1T - 595/2014/i

L,IIic91rfEg I

- I '"1LI L!'' IlII

TITIL!1fII

IL2ii

iIIiLJSjE'1

iitaiii Ii1IL.E C31

Pufq fi1ct :— 18.09.2017

IIci

mi

âlW

3T4r i. ait ;3t . fif. 3Th IW Rwift d nf 125/14 241 /314t/ IU/3i/q 07.09.12 07-08 278857 164526 - 126/14 242/34t/ III/3i'fl/ 07.09.12 10-11 669848 154065 -. 127/14 243/31'/ III/3Icflcl/q5 07.09.12 11-12 804220 88464 - 128/14 244/3141/ lIl/31I\r/xq 07.09.12 12-13 123786 4951 - 592/14 241/3141/ 11I/31l))/ 07.09.12 07-08 - - 557714 593/14 242/3141/ III/31Ttt/q5 07.09.12 10-11 - - 1339697 594/14 243/3141/ III/3l1'l/t 07.09.12 11-12 - - 1608440 595/14 244/3141/ III/3fl/x 07.09.12 12-13 - - 247572

C' c't1IIc1I' ................2

- 2 - 1-8 3fI '14I 125 128/2014 t1 592 595/2014/i11

2. -11c1 .lCt)' ? r?.Z -4-1 (f)U 1ct)I P*c1IUI vcF T Piu1 t 1bii ii

RT t, [tu z !,4ccp tR W5_tT45

3 t fTT &fri (r ik r

Tfr5rr' Z5T 7r ) TT TZT c1 ci I YFcTira A7ZqT 1 cj Z!T ffZ tR tflIT TrM

c 1 ri 01 4f q q,8 c f ct TT RctIg ZT5T 3T Z[ ci'l c IF T1T TFZIT f -:24 ci 6 i ) 9M cii &rfzft 4 A

-cI'j rrF IF 4/5 ,iRIci lIc1 f4TW CciI TT IIcP1 iii * ITT

Zr* '-u11?.4 31T1 f5tT1 I 3flc1it4 3Trf # IIctici TTrF Aiu tig TF ' j ORt

r[ ii PIT Tm;it 0 c.icii) ur f II / 7m c I I I YlI I

4. TTT 3fT yici1i'L 37t&T ftqU zi uIcrc -I Z Zr5T ciej')cp.-f 1i,

1)iW1 tITZJT f5 CLIciI 1T RP1 iZ 1T * 1kctI 31tt)7EFIgO 11IRi 1S-1I 163

ct 31'4 Sugar Candy made of Sugar & Glucose but excluding coco 9t tITZIT I

ct 31cic'1'IcPI tR SUGAR BOILED CONFECTIONERY Zr 03ff4Tff M-qT TM, 1iti *'-Ic.

f5 zuu onuts CPI'1' t ctPb T ft 1lcf0 ITT 7Z 3lRbcl tIPlT ITM I ccii1'i RT

Ictc1 IT1 4/5 M R1I0 WRt 7 QJilcti # 79T ctI1I TMT ti 04cii1i

1T Ic1T 1iT1 F(Dif:47 m T9T 3jc Z fr zit tThm cp'cc1J

3Th: l09TT NI cPctI1') t I 343flci'It 31 31tj) V*I 1I9I

Z5 cp4 rri rr CZ1 r415 1 311Icii2.1 TU Trcirff fic1zi'i IT TmT r-u tm 1ci IDRII . Icici 0H IJIC Z5 31T cP 15 gRci.sfi

'iI'1I

* f[ i'11èi 1T fl11 tZr *ccl -IC1II 311 31R Zr IIRc1.i1

Zr5T 31I .,i)L.IUI 1bL4I 1Tztr I 3M 3II~I Z*f 'ICP< CciI1 TT 31tk 31 f74p Z

Zr zwur * f9 rR 311 t 31 c ' 13-I c) i 31fTh1 * 3ZrT 311 ' I

qf&457 OciI T 311 Z Zr 'Thl * f*3t 77 tZr I'.1 TT IIIciil *

5. 74TZrqem qtm

6. c 1151 3TR Ri i i 31ThfE5 I52.FT fbff fCt 'i i c rr fi TFZIT

-#L [ 163

'14I0 CPc'1 'IuI4 ff c4l TZ[[ I rr 'H'<cPk RI 35:rt 311ET9T 1jjcp

01 .06.2006 TM 31ti E12.f [R1R. 'thsLii 163 'i' 'Sugar candy made

of sugar and glucose but excluding coco' iici'5 3TffffR Iicic1ci ictlIc T 1D?I * * cPkUl cIc41I 4/5 f1rT1 ZI5 1Ic1 cci W1T cIlt 1PT[ I 31"—f it qf~f~Z

A~. i ci'IIc1I' ................3

3 - 1-8 314I 1sfl 125 128/2014 g4 592 595/2014/1l

isi 163 A All type of sugar candy 11R1d t f2.1T 'Coco1 IIci CU)

9t t I t.1TfT5T Sugar candies made of sugar and glucose and containg flavours, cream

and colors 4* c1: 'T45 ve 1i 9 I 1ii 3T 1Y'1 IIc 15TE 1ii

fict ct1I90 Ic 3TWI&2T19*1 I14) ,4 3ci1

'tIc'i'-1 T Prft Gurudevdutta VK Margyadit and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and

others 2001 (004) SSC-0534(SC) T cici cRci f1I I TTT t \iiI 4TT 14Ti f5

cc' 3c.1Ic fcp tt Sugar & Glucose t T21T 1TE 1TE Flavouring

Substances, Emulisifiers and colorants tt t I I1N 3TT4 i'iIi fm IT

1993 tcM ERR. 32 '1ctI-T-1 TT clIII fzlT 1ii4IT i'1ei1, i-I 90 lf?II0

3TfT0 CCJ ff9T * I fii 3T1r 3i1?i1i

31Ictc1 TT 3ffRflT it £1TT 12-7 3IL1 T 31I'I f1Icb 02.01.1989 i4 31I'1cp

cP1ci 51 Ic1 k Lozenges Toffee 4* 1 tt tc# IT9T 'iiIi1 if f1PT

77 TaFcmt tT ci c1cTI I 3- i cbf4g ) fT fy cT I INi

zr fii f ZJ cP I 1 3TfEf9T f i !`4) 03.06.2008 * rr

ET1 T

vfift 174 dI {~1ICP 01 .04.2006 f -iicr 07.05.2006

Tri~F it 3T4fT* I45 77F 4i1c cp frj) 7Z WIIc1 Tr

1TUT 3445 ç-I 1flf u0 1 q c cr' ct I I i cP Tffff I .-Lj j5

1. [Supreme Court of India] Frick India Limited Vs State of Haryana May 13, 1994. 2. [In The Supreme Court of India] (2009) VST 249 (SC) Sree Krishna Electricals Vs State of

Tamil Nadu April 21, 2009 3. [Supreme Court of India] J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs Comm. Taxes Officer (C.A. Nos. 3414 to

3416 of 1982) Birla Cement Works Vs State of Rajasthan May 9, 1994. 4. [2012] 51 VST 130(Mad) [In The High Court] Cadbury India Limited Vs Assisstant

Commissioner (CT), Chennai July, 2009 5. [In The High Court of Karnataka At Bangalore] Kundanamal Ganeshmal And Borthers Vs

State of Karnataka February 12, 1993. 6. [2012] 48 VST 107 (AP) [In The Andhra Pradesh High Court] Banyan Enterprises Vs

Commercial Tax Officer August 24, 2011. 7. [2017] 98 VST 172 (Born.) [In The Bombay High Court] Zamil Steel Buildings India Pvt.

Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra December 23, 2016 8. [In The High Court of Rajasthan At Jodhpur] Black Stone Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs

State of Rajasthan February 19, 2001. 9. [2011] 39 VST 184(All) [In The Allahabad High Court] Kesar Enterprises Ltd. Vs State of

U.P. August 27, 2010/ 10. [2011] 43 VST 222(All) [In The Allahabad High Court] Dabur India Limited Vs State of

U.P. December 6, 2010/ 11. [In The Allahabad High Court] Harbans Lai Malhotra Vs Assistant Commissioner

Ghazia bad July 28, 1994 12. [In The High Court of Kerala At Ernakulam] New Prasanthi Automobiles Co. Vs State of

Kerala Sepetember 26, 1992.

Q1Hc1F' ................4

- 4 - 1-8 3I$I #W 125 128/2014 74 592 595/2014/1iq

13. Reportes of Sales Tax Cases Vol. 146 2006 [High Court of Madhya Pradesh] Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Indore Vs Modern Agency October 25, 2004.

14. [In The High court of Rajasthan] Jaipur Bench Cycle Hatt of Jaipur Vs The Board of Revenue May, 13, 1977.

15. [2007] 5 VST 197 (All) [In The Allahabad High Court] Carbon Crafts Pvt. Ltd. Vs state of U.P. December 13, 2005.

16. In The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur Commercial Taxes Officer Vs Ms Heera Lal Murlidhar Bikaner Date July 2, 1992.

7. 3T: 4cic1 [U') f 4I?J.flIc1 I1cI'0 * 31k cI' RT .1*c,cj 3.L ç

fr 1T !1*c,c1 3-1 3c1,N T fc'i 1i I

8. '<IJi*cI 1i.-i 3'T—'cIulc1 31TT1 5 5T1 R4I f$ HcPk

&fEr9T FIICP 19.04.2006 iit1 *slI 154 J1) TP-ft ?r fk 1ct,k

"154 unbranded bakery products including cookies, cakes and pestries,

confectionery excluding chocolates"

R'IICP 08.05.2006 t 3Tf.1T9T Confectionery t unbranded 'ii'kt TR1T I 1iicpi

clIcY4 7T g3ff 1 ti cpctl) [f: t S.L1I 154 1I tfq ii-u'c '1I1I -'1 z -'i i- rir WT 9M iRci 1IICI 17.02.2017 NI-1 YY 1L1I w.fk qffm tctI

CpUT 'qJ 473/2011 74 3TZ -UJc4 'ditf tR 3T.1Tf1 cpo'i

C-NI1 fc1 Ifc1 iIU- f 3Tifci -it

zit• I3TT: 1m1 '3t i'-iIc-T Tt1? gI c f[Uf4 J'tf (.lU1c1.4l iiitlIci

\3- RI 3cpj' 5T Pi 1i t j

9. 39Z1tIT T T21T fT -L1I1~cbpd lcut Z5J i.ftwm:j

TTT9 f I TRIT Ic),c1 i c . Uf I ci fr TF9 t f çp ç 1Um T tR iT ?

10.

it ifif si 163 "Sugar Candy made of sugar & Glucose but excluding coco" it 4/5 4RRT P'1dF T TrFF )ct Sugar and Glucose &IclIclI 3TVq ZUE T 119S1 Mixing and Blending F1c4-i t fI-ci Aiutg '3cI' m c2 5IR.1' RT Ic1ci

Er4 Em AWt -kcT "154 unbranded bakery products including cookies,

cakes and pestries, confectionery excluding chocolates " qFR qlat \a,TI

ccIrj zm 1T I 311IIU CPCtI-I1 3fT 9T -i f c0 08.05.2006 *

i I -t i '<Z1T t I 3: CL1 16 1it TFJ j[JU t g 1Tp

1 19T fT T I &1bT 3Tf5T TT tnf

L

&

- 5 - 1-8 3TMV1 HsI 125 128/2014 t 592 595/2014/J1g

11*c1 T2Zt1 15't 1ci ti c2I i1 fiRci f

I< cP tI't 1 11Ic1 it TrI t I I's.1 1Cpk TT 311 [9T

R'iicp 25.02.2008 t 164'1ctc1 cIIc1 711*c1 31f f.'iicp 01.04.2006 t r-ijci1ki t I

fthOT 3Tfr * rr frit1 iivq cpci

f11ci cil {a'c iic'iie..i 3IrfTt 4 cP 1 UI flT t I -ii'-i4l'i iT -IPE

3W -Nk'N, '14 iii'i W2Zft tR 1iRci 4ctI-Fl R Vff)

1's1I 473/2011 4-i*f y'i1 rkt fdS wofro, izi iii-,3 '.iIctci (31e'1)

cc4 3T4 fUf.q R'iicp 17.02.2017 # f~t T U4cf) fuf.4 Z '.1's.lI 17 tF 19

fci 1U

"17. Taking into consideration the judgment of this court in the case of M/s.

Heera Lal Murlidhar (supra), where this court has taken into consideration the

meaning of "confectionery" from various dictionaries, as reproduced

hereinbefore, it would show that the AO had taken into consideration that the

products manufactured by the assesses are produced on account of constant

mixing and blending with various ingredients and these are hardened sweet

confectionery which are prepared by mixing various ingredients. Applying the

test as laid down by this court in the case of M/s Heera Lal Murlidhar (supra),

a sugar candy or Meethi Goli which was considered by this court contains

purely lumps of sugar and nothing more, whereas in the instant case it is

merely not sugar but many more ingredients are added to it. These are

essentially toffees or other products and cannot fall purely as a Sugar Candy containing majority of sugar." TT tT 19

"19. In my view, applying the common parlance test which has been held

appropriate by the Apex court time and again in matters like this, the products

in which the assessee are dealing, are certainly branded toffees. Taking into

consideration the aforesaid reasoning of the Apex court as well as by this court 61

(supra), in my view the finding reached by all the three authorities in unision is

well reasoned and no interference is required to be taken into consideration

and accordingly while the tax is upheld and consequently the interest being consequential, is also upheld."

II tU

3

31T I Cf TT IlIcP fu 12T 1IcT TUj

91T tff

11. Yv), 7-Of TrcT T31 -NcPi 31f3EF7 C -1ICP 1 tT.12(15) 791/m/ 2008-19 11JcP 03.06.2008 * GTTffR Aluts ctcNj icRI5 l. 01.04.2006 t f9T5

..........................6

I

- 6 - 1-8 311ft1 eisii 125 128/2014 Y4 592 595/2014/

07.05.2006 W5 4 iI?Ici ffci 3T: T TT 44fTi TN

i1wrfzf I5 1ii f lTk t f5 qft cP1I cI'i R'IICP 01.04.2006 t 07.05.2006

IIc1 tf M 3i')I1ci f1ii 31T1 I

12. 7d 1?T TFRiff f5T f9 t, zirfiRct 45 &fm5r iiI tI fio (12) 32 3, I1R.4cp -j) 1ij fro (2016) 90

22 11NI4 MTFT 3EJ -.II.1MZT PZT SI711 Rici-ci f2IT 1i'-frI 144114

IlRTT TT 'iiRci I1g 21.04.2009 TZIRW -5ft cpW( 1¼cp G('.Wf 3ffq

3TT (2009) 23 VST 249 (SC) fP4 crciJ tI (2009) 23 VST 249 (SC) 9I-I - q 1c1'1TtE

* fp 4cJ

"SO far as the question of penalty is concerned the items which were not

included in the turnover were found incorporated in the appellants account

books. Where certain items which are not included in the turnover are disclosed

in the dealer's own account books and the assessing authorities includes these

items in the dealers turnover disallowing the exemption, penalty cannot be imposed. The penalty levied stands are aside."

ti iii '1cür1 -1N-1I-1 * 3F 31TT it 31Ic'I \JjGJ) Cq C1 6 TiTj f ICI t, 31.I1i i1ci 3]Lq 3T5T cpç

&/ 3flGq 3Icpk it7 UIT I

13. ZT4TffffRTF1I-4 TiT1 3Zf - N-1k'rg TT Iff ffRj it 17.2.2017 * tf -i &fThr 19M tn1ct 3 cP I FqYqwm vft

t, RIc1RI 3{fffi[9T f"IIcp 03.06.2008 it 3rg cof~ t4q czj'f

(rf rrtr) tT 11 * 111UT * 311k fiicp 01.04.2006 t f9T 07.05.2006 ir 3TrfT

, cci TT 4*T 3Tt1 r 5f cj.-.j dCt,I '.sFRlT *, 9T2T t 1-frq flZlZzl

Ii Zf rr qftff fi u <i *c rr i .ui * c

14. r M*,c1 3Tt &tftc /tiy ti rTr 111Tr 1I

TMT I (RTii& 11Ie1c1li)

jqq

AC Izim 0 1 FAMJ~ ~