9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (5) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r has been referred to the Full Bench because there is already decision against the assessee in the assessee's own case for the asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76 and as against this there is also a decision on identical facts in favour of the assessee in the case of ITO, Company Circle II(3), Madras vs. M/s. Southern Ancillaries Pvt. Ltd. Madras in ITA Nos. 1912 and 1913 (Mds)/74-75 operations done by that assessee constituted production or manufacture. In view of the conflict of opinions, the matter has been referred to the Full Bench. 3. Shri. G. Seetharaman, C.A. appearing for the assessee enumerated the various operations done and rough castings entrusted for manufacturing bearing shells by Southern Alloy Foundries Pvt. Ltd. In a note fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out how the operations enlisted above convert the rough casting into a final casting which is a finished product fit for marketing. In the light of the same, he pointed out the assessee's case squarely fit in the group of manufacture or production. He also cited various decisions as under: (i) Chrestian Mica Industries Ltd. vs. State of Bihar another (SC) 12 STC 150 Pages 153 (ii) G.R. Kulkarni vs. State 8 STC 295 Pages 296 297 (iii) Hiralal Jotmal vs. CST 8 STC 325 Pages 327, 328 329 (iv) Raghbirchand Somchand vs. Excise and Taxation Officer 11 STC 149 Pages 154 and 155 (v) Commissioner of Sales tax vs. Dr. Suk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities have rightly denied the relief and it is also supported by the order of the Bench in the assessee's own case. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made before us. We have also gone through the orders of the Tribunal referred to by the AAC and also the order of another Bench in M/s. Southern Ancillaries Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 1912 and 1913 (Mds) 74-75 dt. 5th June, 1976. Firstly, we may refer to the order of the Bench in ITA Nos. 49 and 50(Mds)/76-77 in the assessee's own case which was followed by the AAC and we find that one of the points made out that the assessee must also own the raw materials, the Bench has not accepted the reasoning because that was not necessary. According to it giving shape to the rough casting does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res. Further even the language of s. 80J(1) and (2) does not require that it must not only manufacture or produce articles but also should own the articles. The industrial undertaking may manufacture articles on its own or manufacture articles for others. In the latter case it can carry out the manufacture for others either by purchasing articles itself or by obtaining the raw materials from those others who required the raw-materials to be converted into a finished products. 6. On the question whether the operations carried on by the assessee could be considered as manufacturing operations for the purpose of manufacture of articles, we find it difficult to accept the department's contention that the nature of operations done by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee company is not a manufacturing undertaking. As set out earlier, the manufacturing operations for which the assessee received charges are the determining factors. 7. Recently before the Madras High Court in T.C. Nos. 172 173 of 1975 (CIT vs. M/s. Perfect Liners, Madras) the question came up for consideration whether the assessee therein was entitled to higher development rebate at 35 per cent under s. 33(1)(b)(B)(i). In that connection it was found that the assessee therein was engaged in the business of purchasing rough castings an supplying the same to the manufacturers of pump sets, tractors etc., after machining and polishing them in its factory and one of the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel before the Madras High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
