Supreme Court of India
HAWKINS COOKERS LIMITEDversusSTATE OF KERALA
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 555
- Decided
- 29 April 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ASHOK BHAN
Holding
Satilon (or tuflon) coated non‑stick cookware is not an aluminium household utensil under Entry 5 and must be classified under Entry 104 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.
Summary
Hawkins Cookers Ltd manufactured aluminium cookware coated with satilon (and later tuflon), which makes the products non‑stick. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether such cookware should be taxed under Entry 5 of the First Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 as “aluminium household utensils” or under Entry 104 as “similar home appliances”. The Assessing Authority initially placed the goods under Entry 5, but the Deputy Commissioner, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Kerala High Court re‑classified them under Entry 104, holding that the non‑stick coating materially altered the nature of the product. The Court affirmed that the satilon/tuflon coating distinguishes the cookware from ordinary aluminium utensils, that it is not described as such in trade, and that the 1999 amendment adding “non‑stick cookware” to Entry 104 was merely clarificatory. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, confirming the classification under Entry 104.
Issues considered
- Whether satilon (or tuflon) coated aluminium cookware falls within Entry 5 of the First Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 as ‘aluminium household utensil made of aluminium and aluminium alloys’.
- Whether the same products should be classified under Entry 104 as ‘similar home appliances not coming under any other entry’.
- Whether the 1999 amendment to Entry 104 adding the term ‘non‑stick cookware’ is merely clarificatory or substantive for classification purposes.
Legislation cited
Subjects
classificationsales taxnon‑stick cookwareEntry 5Entry 104Kerala General Sales Tax Acttariff classificationproduct differentiation
Judgment
,. [2008] 7 S.C.R. 77
HAWKINS COOKERS LIMITED A
II.
STATE OF KERALA
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6469-6470 of 2002)
..
-< APRIL 29, 2008
B
[ASHOK BHAN AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.]
Kera/a General Sales Tax Act, 1963 - Entry 104 - Sa tiIon!
Tut/on coated cookware - Held: Classifiable under Entry 104
·1
and not under Entry 5 - Such products cannot be treated as c
ordinary aluminium household utensils - Satilon/Tuf/on
~
coating makes the products non sticky and hence different
from aluminium household utensil falling under Entry 5 - The
amendment to Entry 104 in 1999 by which the word 'non-stick'
1 cookware was added was merely clarificatory in nature.
D
The questions which arose for consideration in these
appeals were whether the satilon coated cookware and
articles coated with tuflon are classifiable under Entry 5
of First Schedule under Ke re la General Sales Tax Act, 1963
as 'an aluminium household utensil made of utensil' or E
whether these products would fall under Entry 104 which
pertains to 'pressure cooker, cook and serve ware to keep
food warm, casseroles, water filters and similar home
appliances not coming under any other entry'.
The Assessing Authority classified the product under F
Entry 5. The Appellate Authority held that as the satilon
coating made the goods non-stick, it would make it
different from the aluminium household utensils made of
aluminium covered under Entry 5 of the First Schedule.
The Tribunal upheld the same. High Court held that the G
- >-
products were classifiable under the heading ·"similar
home appliances" under Entry 104 of the Act and that the
amendment to Entry 104 in the year 1999 by which the
word "non-stick cookware" was added was only
77 H
\
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.
A clarificatory in nature. Hence these appeals.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The view taken by the Tribunal as well as
the High Court that "satilon coated aluminium products" . ;
B are not identical with "aluminium household utensils
made of aluminium and aluminium alloys" is correct. The
coating of satilon makes all the difference to the product.
The Tribunal rightly recorded a finding that in trade
parlance, no one would describe satilon coated
c aluminium products as aluminium household utensils.
[Para 5] [80-F]
1.2. The satilon coated cookware cannot be treated
as ordinary aluminium housohold utensils. Price of the
satilon coated cookware is mLJch more than the aluminium
D household utensils made of a~uminium and its alloys. The J..
Hawkins cookware sold by the assessee cannot be
categorized as household utensils made of aluminium for
the reasons that the satilon coating makes the goods non-
sticky and hence different from the aluminium household
E utensils. In common parlance, Hawkins cookware with
satilon coating is not understc>od as aluminium ware. The
view taken by the High Court that the amendment to Entry
104 of the First Schedule is clarificatory in nature is also
correct. [Para 6] [80-H; 81-A-B]
F Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd and Ors. v. State of Kera/a and
Ors. (1989) 3 SCC 127; Met/ex(/) (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Central Excise, New Delhi (2005) 1 SCC 271; Commissioner
of Central Excise, Cochin v. Apollo Tyres Ltd. (2005) 11 SCC
444 - distinguished.
G
2. Coating of tuflon also makes the article non-stick. ..... -
[Para 1O] [81-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
5459L5470 of 2002.
HAWKINS COOKERS LIMITED v. STATE OF KERALA 79
~ [BHAN, J.]
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2001 of the A
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in TRC No. 562-563/2001.
WITH
' . Civil Appeal No. 7169 of 2004 and 1203 of 2008.
~
T.L.V. Iyer, Gopal Jain, Kaushik Mishra, Bindu K. Nair, B
Sarika Singh, Ruby Singh Ahuja, K.R. Sasiprabhu, Krishan
Venugopal, K. Varghese, Sidhartha, Naresh Kumar, G. Prakash,
Beena Prakash, Varun Sarin (for Ramesh Babu M.R.) for the
~
' appearing parties.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BHAN, J. 1. This order shall dispose of Civil Appeal Nos.
6469-6470 of 2002, 7169 of 2004 and 1203 of 2008.
Civil Appeal Nos. 6469-6470 of 2002 & 1203 of 2008
J: D
2. The issue which arises for consideration in these
appeals is, whether the satilon brand cookware sold by the
appellants is an "aluminium household utensil made of
aluminum" and "aluminium alloys" classifiable under Entry 5 of
the First Schedule under the Kera la General Sales Tax Act, 1963 E
(for short "the Act") or whether the said product would fall under
Entry 104 which pertains to "pressure cooker, cook and serve
ware to keep food warm, casseroles, water filters and similar
home appliances not coming under any other entry".
3. The authority in original i.e. Assistant Commissioner F
(Assessment Ill), Ernakulam at the first instance accepted the
appellant's case and held that the Hawkins
Satilon Cookware manufactured by the appellant was
classifiable under Entry 5 of the First Schedule to the Act. The G
->-· Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in exercise of his
suo motu powers of revision, sought to revise the assessment.
A notice dated 10.9.1999 was issued under Section 35 of the
Act. Appellant replied to the said notice. The Deputy
Commissioner by an order dated 25.9.1999 set aside the earlier
H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.
~
A assessment and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. The
Deputy Commissioner held that as the satilon coating made
the goods non-stick, it would make it different from the aluminium
household utensils made of aluminium, covered under Entry 5
of the First Schedule. Aggrieved by the order passed by the
-~
B Deputy Commissioner, the appellant filed an appeal before the
Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam (for short "the Tribunal").
The Tribunal by its order dated '18.4.2001 upheld the order of
Deputy Commissioner.
4. Against the order of the Tribunal, the appellant filed Tax
c Revision case before the Kerala High Court, which has been
•
'
disposed of by the impugned order. The High Court by a short
order while agreeing with the findings recorded by the Tribunal,
dismissed the revision and held that the products manufactured
by the appellants were classifiable under the heading "similar
D home appliances" under Entry 104 of the Act. It was further held
that the amendment to Entry 104 in the year 1999 by which the
word "non-stick cookware" was added was only clarificatory in
nature. The case of the appellant was that prior to the said
amendment of 1.4.1999 the appellant's product would clearly
E fall under Entry 5 and not under Entry 104.
5. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal
as well as the High Court that "satelon coated aluminium
products" are not identical with "aluminium household utensils ,..-·
F 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.
G 6. We do not agree with· the submission made on behalf
of the assessee that coating olf satilon on the surface of the
metal product does not bring about any change in the nature
and ~tility of the product. By no stretch of imagination, satilon
I
coated cookware can be treated as ordinary aluminium
H
HAWKINS COOKERS LIMITED v. STATE OF KERALA 81
[BHAN, J]
~
household utensils. Price of the satilon coated cookware is much A
l more than the aluminium household utensils made of aluminium
and its alloys. The Hawkins cookware sold by the assessee
cannot be categorized as household utensils made of aluminium
for the reasons that the satilon coating makes the goods non-
..
·-<
sticky and hence different from the aluminium household utensils.
In common parlance, Hawkins cookware with satilon coating is
B
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.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the c
following three judgments:
(i) Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd and others v. State of
Kerala and others, 1989 (3) SCC 127
(ii) Metlex (I) (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central D
J..' Excise, New Delhi, 2005 (1) SCC 271
(iii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin v.
Apollo Tyres Ltd., 2005 (11) SCC 444
8. All these judgments are distinguishable on facts and E
would have no applicability to the facts of the present case. We
have decided the point in issue on its own facts. Under the
circumstances, we reject the plea of the appellants without
adverting to the facts of the said cases.
9. For the reasons stated above, the appeals are F
dismissed.
Civil Appeal No. 7169 of 2004
10. In this case the product is slightly different iri the
sense that the articles are coated with tuflon instead of G
satilon. Coating oftuflon also makes the article non-stick. Before
the High Court the learned counsel, who had appeared for the
assessee, conceded that the point in issue was squarely
covered by the earlier decision of the High Court of Kerala in
W.A. No. 1405 of2004 dated 4.8.2004, which has been upheld H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.
A by us today (Civil Appeal No. 6469-70 of 2002). No other point
was urged.
11. Since we have uph1:ild the order passed by the High
Court in the connected Civil Appeal Nos. 6469-70 of 2002, we
have no hesitation in dismissing this appeal as well. The Orders
B passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are upheld and the ' .
appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. No costs.
D.G. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "classification"Sign in to search