9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for machinery used in retreading tyres. 2. Whether retreading of tyres constitutes manufacturing or mere repair. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Entitlement to Investment Allowance under Section 32A The primary issue in this case is whether the machinery employed in retreading tyres qualifies for investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had previously held that retreading does not bring into existence any new article, thereby disqualifying the assessee from initial depreciation under section 32(1)(vi) of the Act. However, conflicting views on whether retreading results in the manufacture or production of an article led to the referral of the case to a Special Bench. Issue 2: Whether Retreading Constitutes Manufacturing or Repair The learned departmental representative argued that retreading tyres is not equivalent to manufacturing new tyres but is merely a process of repair. He cited the decision of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in Tyreage (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, which held that retreading was not manufacturing but repair. The representative also referenced the Supreme Court decision in P.C. Cheriyan v. Mst. Barfi Devi, which established that a process is considered manufacturing if it results in a complete transformation of the old components into a commercially distinct entity. The Karnataka High Court in Koshy's (P.) Ltd. v. CIT and the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Niemla Textile Finishing Mills (P.) Ltd. v. ITO further supported the argument that retreading does not amount to manufacturing. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee argued that retreading is akin to manufacturing because it involves adding new rubber to the old casing, thereby creating a new article. He referenced the decision of the Delhi High Court in Addl. CIT v. Kalsi Tyre (P.) Ltd., which held that retreading gives a new lease of life to worn-out tyres, making them almost new and commercially distinct. The counsel also cited various decisions in sales tax matters, which supported the notion that the original character of the basic material need not be lost for a process to be considered manufacturing. Tribunal's Analysis and Conclusion The Tribunal examined Section 32A, which provides for investment allowance for machinery or plant used in the manufacture or production of any article or thing. The emphasis was placed on whether the assessee produces an article, irrespective of whether the process is manufacturing or processing. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Kalsi Tyre (P.) Ltd., which concluded that retreading tyres is akin to manufacturing because it results in a product that is commercially distinct and almost new. The Tribunal also considered the decision in Singh Engg. Works (P.) Ltd., which distinguished production from manufacturing and held that processing raw materials to create a new product constitutes production. Based on these decisions, the Tribunal concluded that retreading tyres produces a new article. The process of retreading, which includes adding new rubber to the old casing, transforms the old tyre into a commercially distinct product. The Tribunal emphasized that the retreaded tyre is sold like a new tyre and is not merely a repaired old tyre. The price difference between the old casing and the retreaded tyre further supports the conclusion that retreading results in a new article. Final Judgment The Tribunal held that the assessee, by retreading old tyres, produces an article and is therefore entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
|
