Bombay High Court

M/S Meera Metal Industries vs The Commissioner Of Sales Tax, ... on 22 November, 2016

Bench: S.C. Dharmadhikari

str.7.2009 (Colabawalla)28.10.2016.doc

dik

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

SALES TAX REFERENCE NO. 7 OF 2009

Meera Metal Industries ...Applicant
Vs

Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai ...Respondent

AND

SALES TAX REFERENCE NO.15 OF 2009

Meera Metal Industries
Vs
ig ...Applicant

Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai ...Respondent

.....

Mr. S. P. Surte for the Applicant in both References

Mr. S. K. Nair, Panel Counsel for the State Respondent in STR
7/2009.

Ms. Uma Palsudesai - AGP for State Respondent in STR 15/2009

.....

CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI &
B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ.

Reserved on : 18th October, 2016 Pronounced on : 22nd November, 2016.

JUDGMENT [ Per B. P. COLABAWALLA J ]:

1. By these two Sales Tax References, the Second Bench of

Pg 1 of 22

str.7.2009 (Colabawalla)28.10.2016.doc

the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (for short the "MSTT") has

referred the following questions of law for an opinion of this Court

under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short "BST

Act"). These references have been preferred at the instance of the

Applicant. The question of law referred for our opinion are as under:-

(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and

on true and correct interpretation of the Schedule

Entries C-II-17 and C-II-46A appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, was the Tribunal legally justified in

holding that the hard-anodised utensils sold by the appellant under his sale invoice dated 12.01.1995 is a heat-resistent cookware under the Schedule Entry C-II-

46A and hence does not get covered by the Schedule

Entry C-II-17?

(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and

on true and correct interpretation of the Schedule Entries C-II-24 and C-II-26 appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, was the Tribunal legally justified in holding that the hard-anodised utensils sold by the

appellant under his sales invoice dated 06.02.1996 falls under Schedule Entry C-II-26 and hence would not get covered by the Schedule Entry C-II-24?

2. Though the questions of law that have been referred for

our opinion are whether the products of the Applicant sold under Pg 2 of 22

str.7.2009 (Colabawalla)28.10.2016.doc

their invoices dated 12th January, 1995 and 16th February, 1996, fall

under Schedule Entries C-II-17 or C-II-46A (prior to 30.09.1995) and

Schedule Entries C-II-24 or C-II-26 (after 30.09.1995), Mr Nair,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue contended that

as far as the Applicant's products are concerned, prior to 30.09.1995,

the same would fall under Schedule Entry C-II-46B as held by the

Commissioner in his order dated 7th August, 1999 that was passed on

an Application filed by the Applicant seeking determination of the

rate of tax on their products, namely, "Anodized Concave Tawa" and

"Anodized Kadai" of different sizes ("the DDQ order").

3. To understand the present controversy, it would be

necessary to first set out the necessary Schedule Entries and the

amendments thereto. Schedule Entry C-II-17 deals with inter alia

utensils made of non-ferrous metals. For the period 1.9.1990 to

30.09.1995, the Schedule Entry C-II-17 read as under:-





    Sr.No.   Description of Goods              Rate of Sales   Rate of Purchase Period
                                               Tax             Tax
    17       Utensils made of non-ferrous                                             1.9.1990 to
             metals (other than those               6%                 6%             30.9.1995
             covered by any other entries in
             this schedule or any other
             schedule), but excluding
             utensils made of gold and
             silver
             (Sales or purchases of utensils
             made of aluminium of this

                                                                                    Pg 3 of 22

str.7.2009 (Colabawalla)28.10.2016.doc

Entry: Rate of tax is reduced to

4 % by Entry (235) G by STA-

1086/103/RES-8 dt. 30.6.1986 w.e.f. 1.7.1986 to 31.3.1994

and w.e.f. 1.4.1994 the rate of tax is reduced to 1 % by STA-

1094/12/T-2 dt. 8.9.1994)

4. The Schedule Entries relating to heat resistant cook-ware

and non-stick cook-ware for the relevant period were Schedule

Entries C-II-46A and C-II-46B which read thus:-

                                   
    Sr.No.    Description of Goods               Rate of       Rate of Purchase Period
                                  
                                                 Sales Tax     Tax
    46A       Heat resistant cook-ware and                                           1.7.1982 to
              serveware, that is kitchenware        12%               12%            30.9.1995
              coated with heat-resistant
              coatings and used for cooking
       

              as well as serving
    46B       Non-stick cook-ware, that is                                           1.7.1982 to
    



              utensils and other kitchenware        12%               10%            30.9.1995
              made of aluminium or other
              non-ferrous metals and treated
              with stick-resistant coatings

5. Thereafter, on 1 October, 1995 substantial amendments

were made to the BST Act, as a result of which the Schedules

appended to the BST Act underwent radical changes. In fact they

were replaced by entirely new Schedules altogether. Schedule Entry

C-II-17 relating to utensils made of non-ferrous metals was replaced

with Schedule Entry C-II-24 with no real major changes with the

Pg 4 of 22

str.7.2009 (Colabawalla)28.10.2016.doc

exception of the rate of tax. As far as Schedule Entries C-II-46A and

C-II-46B are concerned, they were replaced with Schedule Entry C-II-

26. The said Schedule Entries C-II-24 and C-II-26 read as under:-




                                                               
    Sr.No.   Description of Goods              Rate of Sales    Rate of Purchase Period
                                               Tax              Tax
    24       Household utensils made of                                                 1.10.1995
             non-ferrous metals excluding           4%                  4%                to date
             those covered elsewhere




                                                
             (Rate reduced to 2 % on sales
             by RD of household utensils
             made of non-ferrous metals,
                                  
             entry A-54(2) of Noti. u/s. 41
             w.e.f. 27.9.96)
                                 
    Sr.No.   Description of Goods              Rate of         Rate of              Period
                                               Sales Tax       Purchased Tax
       

    26       Cookware, serveware and                                                1.10.1995 to
             kitchenware coated with any          12%                12%            30.9.1996
             material to make heat resistant
    



             or non-stick

6. On a comparison of Schedule Entries C-II-46A and C-II-

46B on the one hand (before amendment) and Schedule Entry C-II-26

on the other hand (after amendment), it is clear that with effect from

1.10.1995 the Schedule Entries C-II-46A and C-II-46B were combined

into Schedule Entry C-II-26. Now after amendment, Schedule C-II-26

took within its sweep cookware, serveware and kitchenware coated

with any material to make it heat resistant or non-stick.

Pg 5 of 22

str.7.2009 (Colabawalla)28.10.2016.doc

7. Having set out the relevant Schedule Entries, we shall

now turn our attention to the facts. In both these References the

facts are almost identical. Hence, for the sake of convenience we shall

refer to the facts in Sales Tax Reference No.7 of 2009.

(a) The Applicant is a Partnership Firm and manufactures

aluminium utensils used for the household purposes.

According to the Applicant, the utensils sold by it are not

coated with any material so as to make them heat

resistant or non-stick. Be that as it may, since the

Applicant wanted some clarity in respect of the products

sold by it, namely, "Anodized Concave Tawa" and

"Anodized Kadai", the Applicant filed two Applications

both dated 10th October, 1997 ("the DDQ Applications")

under Section 52 of the BST Act for determination of the

rate of tax in respect of the said products. In the DDQ

Applications, in relation to the products sold under its

invoice dated 12th January, 1995, the Applicant

contended that its products were covered by Schedule

Entry C-II-17. In relation to the products sold under its

invoice dated 6th February, 1996, the Applicant

contended that its products would fall under Schedule

Pg 6 of 22

str.7.2009 (Colabawalla)28.10.2016.doc

Entry C-II-24.

(b) By his common order dated 7th August, 1999 ("the DDQ

Order"), the learned Commissioner rejected the

contentions of the Applicant and held that the products of

the Applicant sold under their invoice dated 12th

January, 1995, would fall under Schedule Entry C-II-46B

and the products sold under their invoice dated 6th

February, 1996, would fall under Schedule Entry C-II-26.

The reasoning given by the Commissioner was that

considering the process of manufacturing as described by

the Applicant and reading the advertisement of the said

products, it was clear that the Applicant's products were

not only promoted as non-stick cookware but had an

"Armour Finish" which forms a stick resistant coating on

the products of the Applicant. The products of the

Applicant could not be called simple aluminium utensils

and there was a marked difference in the price range

between plain aluminium utensils and the products of the

Applicant, was the finding of the Commissioner.

Accordingly, the Commissioner, by his order dated 7th

August, 1999 rejected the contentions of the Applicant.

Pg 7 of 22

str.7.2009 (Colabawalla)28.10.2016.doc

Appeals before the MSTT. These Appeals of the Applicant

came to be disposed of by the MSTT vide its order and

judgment dated 16th January, 2007. The MSTT inter alia

held that the products of the Applicant sold under its

invoice dated 12th January, 1995 would fall under

Schedule Entry C-II-46A (and not under Schedule Entry

C-II-46B as held by the Commissioner). As far as the

products sold under its invoice dated 6th February, 1996

are concerned, the MSTT held that the same would fall

under Schedule Entry C-II-26. The MSTT inter alia held

that the process of electrolysis and which was performed

on the products of the Applicant, formed a coating on the

products which made it heat-resistant. By virtue of this

coating, the Applicant claimed that its products were non-

toxic, non-staining and non-reactive with food. The MSTT

held that the anodized utensils were unaffected by high

heat, while the coating on a non-stick cookware would

come off with mechanical abrasion and deteriorate

rapidly with heat in excess of 260° C. Thus, on the basis

of this reasoning, the MSTT classified the products of the

Pg 8 of 22

str.7.2009 (Colabawalla)28.10.2016.doc

Applicant sold under their invoice dated 12th January,

1995 under Schedule Entry C-II-46A instead of C-II-46B

(as held by the Commissioner). Since after 1.10.1995,

Schedule Entry C-II-26 took within its purview cookware,

serveware and kitchenware coated with any material

making it heat-resistant or non-stick, the MSTT held that

the Applicant's products sold under its invoice dated 6th

February, 1996 would fall under Schedule Entry C-II-26.

(d) Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Appeals by the

MSTT, the Applicant preferred two Reference

Applications under Section 61 of the BST Act inter alia

praying to refer the questions mentioned in the said

Applications for the opinion of this Court. It is, in these

circumstances, that the MSTT partly allowed the

Reference Applications and referred the questions of law

mentioned in paragraph 1 above for the opinion of this

Court.

8. In this factual backdrop, Mr Surte, the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the Applicant, submitted that the products of

the Applicant in question were basically aluminium utensils on which

Pg 9 of 22

str.7.2009 (Colabawalla)28.10.2016.doc

an anodizing process was done. The said anodizing process was

explained by Mr Surte as follows:-

"Aluminium utensils are put through a process of heating and anodizing whereby it acquires a quality of stick-resistance. The anodizing is done in order to give a smooth finish and better appearance to the utensils. Because of anodizing, the food

cooked in the utensil is non-toxic and is without staining and non-reactive. The metal surface is toughened to armour finish by an electrolysis process. Heavy guage and commercially pure aluminium metal is chosen because it is a good conductor of

heat. The vessel is provided with heat-proof handles. It is efficient and long lasting. It is not treated with any stick- resistant coating."

9. Mr Surte argued that despite this anodizing process, the

products of the Applicant continued to remain aluminium utensils

covered by Schedule Entry C-II-17 for the period prior to and

including 30.09.1995, and by Schedule Entry C-II-24 for the period

commencing from 1.10.1995. Mr Surte contended that the products

of the Applicant, in trade parlance, could never be classified as non-

stick cookware. In any event, he submitted that anodizing is done to

give a better finish and by virtue of this process its products become

non-toxic and non-reactive to food. He submitted that before the

products of the Applicant could be classified either under Schedule

Entries C-II-46A or C-II-46B (before amendment) or Schedule Entry

C-II-26 (after amendment), the same has to be treated with a coating

to give it either heat resistant or non-stick properties. He laid great

stress on the words "coated w ith heat-resistant coatings" appearing Pg 10 of 22

str.7.2009 (Colabawalla)28.10.2016.doc

in Schedule Entry C-II-46A and the words "treated w ith stick-

resistant coatings" in Schedule Entry C-II-46B to contend that a

separate coating has to be applied to the products which makes it

heat resistant or non-stick before one can classify it under either of

the said Schedule Entries.

10. According to Mr Surte, by carrying out the process of

anodizing, the Applicant was not putting any coating on the product

or treating it with any coating which makes it either heat-resistant or

non-stick. Therefore, according to Mr. Surte, the Applicant's products

would clearly fall outside the purview of the Schedule Entries C-II-

46A and C-II-46B (before amendment) as well as Schedule Entry C-II-

26 (after amendment). Accordingly, he submitted that the questions

of law set out in paragraph 1 above be answered in the negative and

in favour of the Applicant and against the Revenue.

11. On the other hand, Mr Nair, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the Revenue, submitted that the products of the Applicant

sold under its first invoice dated 12th January, 1995 ought to be

classified under Schedule Entry C-II-46B (non-stick cookware) and

under the second invoice dated 6th February, 1996 under Schedule

Entry C-II-26. According to him, the products of the Applicant would

Pg 11 of 22

str.7.2009 (Colabawalla)28.10.2016.doc

squarely fall in the aforesaid two Entries as they have stick resistant

properties. They acquire these stick resistant properties by virtue of

a coating being formed on the utensils by virtue of it undergoing the

process of anodizing. He submitted that the argument of the

Applicant that no coating is found on the utensils when it undergoes

the process of anodizing is factually incorrect. He submitted that the

process of anodizing the aluminium utensils provides a stick

resistant coating to the utensils. By virtue of this process, therefore,

the utensils of the Applicant become nonstick cookware which is

specifically covered under Schedule Entry C-II-46B (before

amendment) and C-II-26 (after amendment). He, therefore,

submitted that the products of the Applicant could not have been

classified under C-II-17 or C-II-24.

12. He submitted that the dictionary meaning of the term

"anodizing" is a process to produce a durable film on the surface by

electrolysis action in which the metal acts as an anode. Mr Nair

submitted that the durable film that is formed is nothing but a

durable coating on the utensils and hence a coating is created on the

utensils during the process of electrolysis. By virtue of this coating,

the utensils achieve stick resistant properties, besides other

properties such as being non-reactive and non-toxic. Mr Nair also

Pg 12 of 22

str.7.2009 (Colabawalla)28.10.2016.doc

placed reliance on Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary wherein

the process of anodizing has been described as an "electrolytic

treatm ent of Alum inium , M agnesium and a few other m etals as a result

of which heavy, stable film s of oxide are form ed on their surfaces ".

13. Mr Nair submitted that the process of anodizing converts

the metal surface into a decorative, durable, corrosion-resistant,

anodic oxide finish by passing an electric current through the

medium. Anodizing is accomplished by immersing the aluminium

into an acid electrolyte bath and passing an electric current through

the medium. A cathode is mounted on the inside of the tank and the

aluminium acts as an anode, so that oxygen ions are released from

the electrolyte to combine with the aluminium atoms at the surface of

the part being anodized. It is by this process that a current is applied

and the water in the electrolyte breaks down and oxygen is deposited

at the anode. This oxygen then combines with the aluminium to form

oxide and thus builds on the oxide film present on the surface which

has stick-resistant properties. This electrochemical process thickens

and toughens the naturally occuring protective oxide. Apart from

this, the satilon coating (viz. an integral part of the metal built up

molecule to the thickness of more than 50 microns, under very

carefully controlled conditions, through electrolysis) forms an

Pg 13 of 22

str.7.2009 (Colabawalla)28.10.2016.doc

extremely stable surface that is non-toxic, non-staining and non-

reactive with foods. It is highly abrasion resistant and will not

scratch. The resulting finish, depending on the process, is the second

hardest substance known to man, second only to diamonds. He,

therefore, submitted that the products of the Applicant have been

correctly classified by the Commissioner in its DDQ order under

Schedule Entry C-II-46B (before amendment) and C-II-26 (after

amendment).

14. Additionally, Mr Nair submitted that even under the

common parlance test, the products of the Applicant could not be

understood as ordinary aluminium utensils that would fall under

Schedule Entry C-II-17 (before amendment) and C-II-24 (after

amendment). The prices of the products of the Applicant are far

higher than ordinary aluminium utensils sold in the market. For all

the aforesaid reasons, Mr Nair submitted that the products of the

Applicant sold under their invoice dated 12th January, 1995 are

correctly classified by the Commissioner under Schedule Entry C-II-

46B. Similarly, according to Mr. Nair, the Commissioner has

correctly classified the products of the Applicant sold under their

invoice dated 6th February, 1996 under Schedule Entry C-II-26.

Pg 14 of 22

str.7.2009 (Colabawalla)28.10.2016.doc

15. We have heard the learned counsel for respective parties

at length. We have perused the papers and proceedings in both the

References as well as given our careful consideration to the relevant

Schedule Entries. Schedule Entry C-II-17, as it stood during the

period 1st September 1990 to 30th September 1995, deals with

utensils made of non-ferrous metals (other than those covered by any

other Entries in Schedule "C" or any other Schedule) but excluding

utensils made of gold and silver. The rate of tax was 6%. As far as

heat resistant cookware is concerned, the same was covered by

Schedule Entry C-II-46A and provides that heat resistant cookware

and serveware, that is kitchenware coated with heat resistant

coatings and used for cooking as well as serving, would fall within

this Entry. As far as non-stick cookware is concerned, the same was

covered under Schedule Entry C-II-46B and provides that non-stick

cookware, that is utensils and other kitchenware made of aluminium

or other non-ferrous metals and treated with stick-resistant coatings,

would fall within this Entry. These Entries related to a period upto

30th September, 1995 and which would govern the Applicant's

invoice dated 12th January, 1995.

16. As far as the invoice dated 6th February, 1996 is

concerned, the relevant Schedule Entries under which the products

Pg 15 of 22

str.7.2009 (Colabawalla)28.10.2016.doc

of the Applicant could be classified, were Schedule Entries C-II-24 or

C-II-26. Schedule Entry C-II-24 stipulates that household utensils

made of non-ferrous metals excluding those covered elsewhere,

would fall within this Schedule Entry. Schedule Entry C-II-26

provides for cookware, serveware and kitchenware coated with any

material to make it heat resistant or non-stick.

17. When all these Entries are looked at and examined

together, what can be discerned therefrom is that if cookware,

serveware and kitchenware (which would obviously include utensils)

is heat resistant or non-stick by virtue of any coating (whether

formed, applied or treated), on the utensils, then the same would

clearly fall within Schedule Entries C-II-46A (heat resistant) or C-II-

46B (non-stick) [before amendment], and C-II-26 [after amendment],

as the case may be. Therefore, they cannot be classified under

Schedule Entries C-II-17 (before amendment) or C-II-24 (after

amendment). This is the clear intention of the Legislature in

classifying different products in different Entries.

18. The thrust of Mr Surte's argument was that there is no

coating on the products sold by the Applicant under its invoices dated

12th January, 1995 and 6th February, 1996 for it to fall either under

Pg 16 of 22

str.7.2009 (Colabawalla)28.10.2016.doc

Schedule Entries C-II-46A or C-II-46B (before amendment) or C-II-26

(after amendment). The corollary to this argument was that the

Applicant's products would therefore fall within Schedule Entries C-

II-17 (before amendment) and C-II-24 (after amendment),

respectively.

19. We are afraid we are unable to accept this submission.

For the Applicant's product to fall within either Schedule Entry C-II-

17 (before amendment) or C-II-24 (after amendment), the following

basic conditions are to be fulfilled:-

(1) the utensil is made of non-ferrous metal; and

(2) this utensil made of non-ferrous metal should not be covered in any other Entry either in Schedule 'C' or

any other Schedule to the Bombay Sales Tax Act.

20. In Schedule Entry C-II-17 one more condition has to be

fulfilled, viz. the utensil should not be made of gold or silver. It is

common ground before us that the Applicant's products are made of

aluminium and therefore, the first condition is fulfilled. However, the

dispute arises with reference to the second condition viz. whether

they are covered by any other Entry either in Schedule 'C' or any

other Schedule. According to the Revenue, the products of the

Applicant would be squarely covered by Schedule Entries C-II-46B

(before amendment), and C-II-26 (after amendment).

Pg 17 of 22

str.7.2009 (Colabawalla)28.10.2016.doc

21. Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary describes the

process of anodizing as an "electrolytic treatm ent of Alum inium ,

M agnesium and a few other m etals as a result of w hich heavy, stable

film s of oxide are form ed on their surfaces". It is an electrochemical

process and is accomplished by immersing the aluminium into an

acid electrolyte bath and passing an electric current through the

medium. A cathode is mounted on the inside of the tank and the

aluminium acts as an anode, so that oxygen ions are released from

the electrolyte to combine with the aluminium atoms at the surface

being anodized. It is by this process that a current is applied and the

water in the electrolyte breaks down and oxygen is deposited at the

anode. This oxygen then combines with the aluminium to form oxide

and thus builds on the oxide film present on the surface which has

stick-resistant properties. This electrochemical process thickens and

toughens the naturally occuring protective oxide. The coating

thickness and surface characteristics are tightly controlled to meet

the end product specifications. In other words, anodizing is a matter

of highly controlled oxidation. The end result of this highly controlled

process is that the anodized aluminium cookware is coated with

oxide so that base of the metal does not come in contact with food.

Pg 18 of 22

str.7.2009 (Colabawalla)28.10.2016.doc

22. Looking to all this, what is clear is that the anodizing

process forms a certain coating on the metal, due to which the utensil

achieves additional qualities, one of which is the quality of stick

resistance. In other words, the coating created due to this electrolysis

process achieves stick resistant properties, besides other properties

such as being non-reactive to food etc. We, therefore, are unable to

agree with the main and principle contention of Mr Surte that by the

process of anodizing, the products of the Applicant are not coated

and/or treated with any coating to fall either under Schedule Entry C-

II-46B or C-II-26. We are clearly of the view that by the anodizing

process, a coating is formed on the products of the Applicant which

gives it stick resistant properties and would therefore definitely fall

within Schedule Entry C-II-46B (prior to amendment) and C-II-26

(after amendment).

23. Even from the advertisement of the Applicant's products

(pg 67 of the paperbook), it is clear that this is how even the

Applicant understood it. The relevant portion of the said

advertisement reads thus:-

"This 'Armour' finish cookware is made of heavy gauge, commercially pure aluminium metal, which is one of the best and most even conductors of heat. The metal surface is specially toughened to the 'Armour' finish surface by an electrolysis process.

The Armour Finish forms an integral part of the metal and is natural dark gray in Pg 19 of 22

str.7.2009 (Colabawalla)28.10.2016.doc

colour. IT IS TOUGH, STABLE, NON-TOXIC, NON-STAINING AND NON-

REACTIVE WITH FOODS.

Armour Finish thus combines the superior heat conductivity of aluminium with the

corrosion resistance of stainless steel. Armour Finish does not develop hot-spots like in stainless steel.

Armour Finish:

Stays Looking Good:- It does not tarnish and with a little proper cleaning, stays looking good for years.

Stays tough:- It will not scratch. It is highly abrasion resistant - in fact harder than

stainless steel.

Provides Convenience:- It is stick resistant and its fine smoothness provides for

absolute ease in cleaning."

(emphasis supplied)

24. In fact, in the very same advertisement, while comparing

conventional cookware with the cookware manufactured by the

Applicant, it is also mentioned that it has non-stick qualities. All this

clearly goes to show that the products of the Applicant cannot be

classified under Schedule Entry C-II-17 (prior to amendment) and C-

II-24 (after amendment).

25. In the view that we have taken, we are supported by a

decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hawkins Cookers Ltd.

v/s State of Kerala.1 The issue which arose for consideration before

the Supreme Court was whether the satilon brand cookware sold by

1 (2008) 12 SCC 447 Pg 20 of 22

str.7.2009 (Colabawalla)28.10.2016.doc

the Appellants therein was an "aluminium household utensil made of

aluminium" and "aluminium alloys" classifiable under Entry 5 of the

First Schedule under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, or

whether the said product would fall under Entry 104 which

pertained to "pressure cooker, cook and serve ware to keep food

warm, casseroles, water filters and similar home appliances not

coming under any other entry". Whilst deciding the aforesaid issue,

the Supreme Court at paragraphs 5 and 6 held as under:-

"5. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal as well as the High Court that "satilon coated aluminium products" are not

identical with "aluminium household utensils made of aluminium and aluminium alloys". The coating of satilon makes all the difference to the product. The Tribunal has further recorded a finding that in trade parlance, no one would describe satilon coated

aluminium products as aluminium household utensils.

6. We do not agree with the submission made on behalf of the

assessee that coating of satilon on the surface of the metal product does not bring about any change in the nature and utility of the product. By no stretch of imagination, satilon coated cookware can be treated as ordinary aluminium household utensils. Price of the

satilon coated cookware is much more than the aluminium household utensils made of aluminium and its alloys. Hawkins cookware sold by the assessee cannot be categorised as household utensils made of aluminium for the reasons that the satilon coating makes the goods non-stick and hence different from the aluminium household utensils.

In common parlance, Hawkins cookware with satilon coating is not understood as aluminium ware. We further agree with the view taken by the High Court that the amendment to Entry 104 of the First Schedule is clarificatory in nature."

(emphasis supplied)

26. We must mention here that satilon coating is a hard

Pg 21 of 22

str.7.2009 (Colabawalla)28.10.2016.doc

anodizing coating which is not brushed or sprayed on. It is an

integral part of the metal built up molecule to the thickness of more

than 50 microns, under very carefully controlled conditions, through

electrolysis. Satilon forms an extremely stable surface that is non-

toxic, non-staining and non-reactive with foods. It is a naturally dark

grey colour. No pigment is added. Satilon does not tarnish, stays

looking new for years and makes the utensil non-stick. It will not

scratch, is highly abrasion resistant and is 2.4 times harder than

stainless steel. Once we understand what is a satilon coating, then

the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hawkins Cookers

Ltd.1 would squarely apply to the facts of the present case.

27. In view of our foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation

in holding that the products of the Applicant sold under its invoice

dated 12th January, 1995 would fall under Schedule Entry C-II-46B

and the Applicant's products sold under its invoice 6th February,

1996 would fall under Schedule Entry C-II-26. The Sales Tax