news round up - Taxmann

2010] Commissioner, Trade Tax v. Ramco Coke Industries (All.) 201
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
fell within the description of “machinery, plant, equipment” used in the
processing of ore for sale. It must therefore follow as a necessary corollary
that if any items of goods were purchased by the assessee as being intended
for use as “machinery, plant, equipment, tools, spare parts, stores, accessories,
fuel or lubricants” for the mechanical ore handling plant, they would be
eligible for inclusion in the Certificate of Registration of the assessee.” (p. 1019)
12. A perusal of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chowgule &
Co. (P.) Ltd. (supra) it is apparent that the three Judges’ Bench has not
approved the decision of the Bombay High Court and has held that “Now
undoubtedly there is a close analogy between the facts of Nilgiri Tea
Company’s case and the facts of the present case, but we do not think we
can accept the decision of the Bombay High Court in the Nilgiri Tea
Company’s case as laying down the correct law.” It further held that “When
different brands of tea were mixed by the assessees for the purpose of
producing a tea mixture of a different kind and quality according to a
formula evolved by them, there was plainly and indubitably processing of
the different brands of tea, because these brands of tea experienced, as a
result of mixing, qualitative change, in that the tea mixture which came
into existence was of different quality and flavour then the different
brands of tea which went into the mixture.” It has been further held that
“We are clearly of the view that the blending of ore in the course of loading
through the mechanical ore handling plant amounted to ‘processing’ of
ore within the meaning of section 8(3)(b) and rule 13 . . .”.
13. A Constitution Bench in Devi Dass Gopal Krishnan v. State of Punjab
AIR 1967 SC 1895, while considering the case of extracting the oil from oilseeds,
held that the edible oils produced were different from the oil seeds,
and hence the edible oil produced is taxable though tax has already been
paid on the oil seeds. Apex Court referred to the dictionary meaning of the
“manufacture” as “to transform or fashion raw materials into a changed
form for use” and held that oil is produced out of the seeds. The process
certainly transforms the raw materials into different articles for use, and
therefore is taxable as a new commercial commodity. This Court further
explained that in a case where the scrap iron ingots undergo a vital change
in the process of manufacture and are converted into different commodities,
i.e., rolled steel sections, during the process the scrap iron loses its
identity and becomes a new marketable commodity and, therefore, the
process is certainly one of manufacture.
14. In Ashirwad Ispat Udyog v. State Level Committee AIR 1999 SC 111 :
Apex Court considered the scope of the definition of the term “manufacture”
under the provisions of section 2(j) of the Madhya Pradesh General
Sales Tax Act, 1953, which is in pari materia with section 2(e-1) of the Act,
and held that manufacture is not confined to a new marketable commodity
but also includes old articles made saleable. The Court held as under:
“8. Decisions construing the meaning of the word ‘manufacture’ as used in
other statutes do not apply unless the definition of that word in the particular
statute under consideration is similar to that construed in the decisions. The
GOODS & SERVICES TAX CASES ❑ JANUARY 20 - FEBRUARY 4, 2010 ◆ 77