9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresentative represented on behalf of the Revenue and Dr. Rakesh Gupta, advocate along with Shri Aswani Taneja, chartered accountant represented on behalf of the assessee. 2. The only issue involved in these appeals of the Revenue are against the action of the learned CIT(A) in holding that the activity undertaken by the assessee is a manufacturing activity within the ambit of s. 10B of the Act. It was the submission by the learned Departmental Representative that the assessee was in the business of processing of stone, marble, granite, etc. and exporting the same around the world. It was the submission that the raw stone was procured by the assessee and the same was processed and cut into different sizes, thickness calibrated in order t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rble and only cutting the same and then selling it. In the assessee's case it was the submission that the assessee purchased the raw stone which was the raw material and the same was to be put through various processes and after various value added processes being applied to the raw material being the raw stone the tiles which had been made out of the raw block of stone was being exported by the assessee. It was his submission that the term production was much wider than the term manufacturing. 5. In reply, the Authorised Representative submitted that the activity done by the assessee at its factory premises is cutting stone blocks, which was raw material and calibrating the same and polishing them, made the end product being the tiles of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was liable to be treated as manufacturing activity. The decisions of the Tribunal are in the cases of ITO vs. World Wide Stones (2008) 115 TTJ (Jp) 613, Asstt CIT vs. Wolkem India Ltd. (2007) 107 TTJ (Jd) 439, Aakash Stone Industries Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2007) 106 TTJ (Mumbai) 128, Asstt. CIT vs. Panachayil Industries (2006) 7 SOT 96 (Coch) and Suraj Marbles (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2006) 104 TTJ (Jp) 192. In all the said decisions the Tribunal has held that the term production is wider than the manufacture and assuming that the activities of the assessee are not treated as manufacturing, the same in any case would have to be treated as production. Further they have held that because of highly skilled and specialized work on the said product, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
