1981 (6) TMI 6 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of development rebate eligibility for manufacturing articles listed in the Fifth Schedule under section 33(1)(b)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The High Court of Gujarat examined the eligibility for a higher rate of development rebate under section 33(1)(b)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the manufacture of articles specified in the Fifth Schedule. The case involved an assessee who purchased special steel, processed it through heat treatment, and manufactured wires. The question was whether the assessee, by processing special steel into wires, was entitled to the higher development rebate rate applicable to manufacturers of special steels. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had upheld the assessee's claim, citing a decision of the Kerala High Court. However, the High Court emphasized the distinction between manufacturing special steel and manufacturing an article from special steel. The critical factor was whether the article manufactured itself was special steel or an article made from special steel. The court highlighted that the development rebate is granted to encourage the manufacture of specific articles listed in the Fifth Schedule, which must be the actual end-product. The judgment emphasized that the end-product must be the article listed in the Fifth Schedule to qualify for the higher development rebate rate.

The High Court further delved into the interpretation of the relevant entry in the Fifth Schedule, which included "Iron and Steel (metal), ferro-alloys and special steels." The court analyzed precedents and legislative intent to determine that the entry referred to the manufacture of special steel itself, not articles made from special steel. The judgment rejected the argument that processing special steel into wires qualified as manufacturing special steel, emphasizing that the end-product must match the specific article listed in the Fifth Schedule to avail the higher development rebate rate. The court also dismissed arguments based on additional entries and import-export regulations, clarifying that the focus was on the actual product listed in the Schedule, not products made from the specified material. Ultimately, the court ruled against the assessee, stating that manufacturing wires from special steel did not meet the criteria for claiming the higher development rebate rate applicable to the manufacture of special steel.