9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of any article. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal involved the issue of whether the assessee was engaged in manufacturing any article. The assessee collected spent caustic lye from textile mills, purified it through processes like sedimentation and evaporation, and increased the concentration of caustic material to 30-40%. The Commissioner, in a revisional order, directed the withdrawal of investment allowance, stating that the assessee did not manufacture caustic soda but extracted it from the waste of textile mills. The key question was whether the activity of the assessee constituted manufacturing. The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the assessee converted waste material into a usable article, relying on legal precedents such as Dy. CST v. Pio Food Packers, Chowgule & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, and Idandas v. Anant Ramchandra Phadke. Additionally, it was contended that similar processes in salt manufacturing were considered as manufacturing activities. On the other hand, the departmental representative argued that not every change in material amounts to manufacturing, citing legal authorities like Chowgule & Co. (P.) Ltd.'s case and Tyreage (P.) Ltd. v. ITO. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and legal precedents, emphasized the test of manufacturing, which requires the activity to result in a new article with distinctive characteristics. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., the Tribunal highlighted that the process undertaken by the assessee transformed spent caustic lye into a liquid with higher concentration, making it usable for mercerising. The new material had a different character, name, and use compared to the spent lye, meeting the test of manufacturing. The Tribunal clarified that the simplicity of the process was not relevant; the focus was on the end result. Drawing a comparison with a case involving tyre retreading, the Tribunal reiterated that the key factor was the creation of a new commercially distinct article. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing activity and entitled to the investment allowance. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee, affirming that the activity of converting spent caustic lye into usable caustic lye constituted manufacturing, meeting the legal test of producing a new article with distinctive characteristics.
|
