9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (4) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re disposed of by this order. 2. The assessee, an individual, is the proprietor of a concerns, M/s. Indra Agencies. By mistake of it has been mentioned in the department s grounds of appeal that he was a partner in the aforesaid concern, but it is not in dispute that he was the proprietor. The assessee had claimed relief under s. 5 (1) (xxxi) of the WT Act. This section provides for the exclusio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons stating that there were no manufacturing activities as such and the business was not a manufacturing concern. 4. The assessee appealed to the AAC. It was submitted that the business was an industrial undertaking within the meaning of the aforesaid provisions as it was engaged in the manufacture and sale of lint and cotton seeds from kapas., The AAC held that the decision in the case of Omkar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 5(1) (xxxii) by not understanding the facts of the case. The firm M/s. Indira Agencies in which the assessee is a partner purchases kapas and issues them as such to ginning factories for converting or processing it to cotton for the wages paid for it. The factories which are third parties process these kapas into cotton and seed and return it to the firm." The contention of the department is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich the learned departmental representative placed stress was that even if there was manufacturing the same was not done by the assessee himself in his factory. We do not find anything in the aforesaid provision which requires that the entire manufacturing should be done by the assessee in his own factory. Even if the assessee gets the goods manufactured that would amount to having industrial unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
