1990 (11) TMI 193 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of "processing of goods" under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.

Detailed Analysis:

1. High Court's Observations:
The Hon'ble High Court declined to answer the question referred to it regarding whether the work of reconditioning automobile and marine engines constitutes "processing of goods" for exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth Tax Act. The High Court emphasized that determining if the firm is engaged in processing goods is a factual inquiry. The Tribunal was directed to reevaluate the matter considering the correct perspective and connotation of the term "processing" under the Act.

2. Arguments and Case Laws:
The counsel for the assessee argued that the work done by the firm involved processing akin to manufacturing, supported by case laws such as CWT v. Radhey Mohan Narain and CIT v. Commercial Laws of India. The departmental representative contended that the firm only performed repair work and did not process goods for sale, citing Star Paper Mills Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise.

3. Workshop Inspection:
The Bench conducted an inspection of the workshop to understand the operations. The workflow chart revealed a detailed process involving various sections like dismantling, metalling, welding, grinding, and assembly. The inspection highlighted that the engines underwent extensive processing and manufacturing activities, rejuvenating the worn-out engines to their original form.

4. Tribunal's Decision:
Based on the workshop inspection and operations analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the firm's activities constituted processing of goods under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth Tax Act. The Tribunal rejected the department's argument that processing must be for sale or resale, emphasizing that even job work on customer-supplied materials involving processing qualifies as an industrial undertaking for exemption.

5. Conclusion and Order:
The Tribunal held that the assessee's share of interest in the firm is eligible for exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth Tax Act. The Tribunal distinguished the case laws cited by both parties, emphasizing its decision based on factual findings and the Act's provisions. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part for the assessment year 1976-77, recalling and substituting its previous order regarding the exemption claim.

This detailed analysis showcases the Tribunal's thorough examination of the processing activities conducted by the firm, leading to the conclusion that the assessee qualifies for exemption under the relevant section of the Wealth Tax Act based on the nature of operations observed during the workshop inspection.