Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 304 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 10B - Manufacturing activities - Assessee, engaged in the activity of Manufacturing and Processing of Crabs, a Sea Product - whether processing, preservation and packaging of marine products would not amount to manufacture or production of article or thing? - HELD THAT - Fundamental mistake committed by both the authorities and the Tribunal is in not examining the nature of activity of the assessee before referring to the various decisions, which according to the Tribunal would result in the assessee s appeal being dismissed. The first and foremost job entrusted to a Central Excise Officer is to examine the nature of activity done by the assessee, when he claims that the activity is a manufacturing process. The Central Excise authorities invariably visit the facility established by the assessee to gain first hand knowledge about the claim made by the assessee that they are into manufacture. In the present case taken a step in the direction as would normally be done by the Central Excise Officers, probably, the finding might have been wholly different or slightly different or it could have been a well reasoned order. The Tribunal as a last fact finding authority, was bound to examine the full facts. Tribunal holds that there is no change in substance used in live crab or used it as by extracting as it meat from the same live crab. The crab meat is crab meat only. The Tribunal concludes by saying that the input and output is the same, which is crab only. There is no dispute to the fact that what is canned is crab meat, but the assessee s case is that activity undertaken by them produces a distinct product, which is not the same as the raw material which is a live crab. Tax Case Appeals are allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal, CIT(A) and the Assessment orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer to take a fresh decision in the matter.- Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Issues:
- Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act as a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged in manufacturing and processing of Crabs, a Sea Product. Analysis: 1. The appeals were filed challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, regarding the deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act for various Assessment Years. 2. The appellant is involved in manufacturing, processing, and exporting sea foods, specifically Pasteurized Crab Meat, as a 100% Export Oriented Unit. 3. The appellant claimed deduction under Section 10B of the Act, which was allowed for some years but denied for others by the Assessing Officer based on failure to meet specific conditions. 4. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and then to the Tribunal, where the orders were upheld, leading to the current challenge before the High Court. 5. The appellant argued that their manufacturing activities qualify for deduction under Section 10B, emphasizing the distinct nature of their product and the recognition as a 100% EOU. 6. The absence of a clear definition of "Manufacture" under Section 10B was highlighted, with contentions that the authorities erred in not understanding the nature of the appellant's activities. 7. The respondent contended that the process carried out by the appellant was processing, not manufacturing, and cited previous decisions to support this argument. 8. The High Court found that the authorities failed to properly examine the nature of the appellant's activities, crucial for determining eligibility for deduction under Section 10B. 9. The Court noted that a visit to the appellant's facility would have provided clarity on the manufacturing process, which was not done by the authorities. 10. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the previous orders, and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after inspecting the appellant's unit and considering all relevant factors. The Substantial Question of Law was left open, and no costs were awarded.
|