9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the materials available before it and relying upon various decisions of the Apex Court and the jurisdictional High Court. Further Tribunal has dissected the activities involved in the processing/manufacturing/ filling of argon gas in cylinders and with the relevant materials on record came to a thoughtful conclusion that the applicant does not deserve the benefit u/s. section 80 IA since it was not carrying on any activity of manufacturing as envisaged under the Act, we are of the considered view that there is no mistake apparent on record to invoke the provisions of section 254(2) even though the decision of the Tribunal is subsequently held to be incorrect - Decided against assessee - IT APPEAL NOS. 299 (Ahd.) of 2003, 2724 (Ahd.) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the assessee was subjected to payment of excise duty to the Central Excise Department who had recognized the activity of the applicant to be that of manufacturing and the certificates issued by the Sales Tax Authorities also supplemented the same, yet the bench erroneously held the assessee's unit to not be a manufacturing unit eligible for claiming exemption u/s 80-IA of the Act. The applicant also drew attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ITO v. Arihant Tiles Marbles (P.) Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 79/186 Taxman 439 wherein it was held that "when the assessee is paying excise duty and recognized by various government authorities as manufacturer then the activity carried on by the assessee will amount to manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that the Tribunal had taken a conscious decision by referring to various case laws on the issue and held that simply because gas unit is registered under Excise Laws does not mean that the tax payer is engaged in manufacturing activity. Further, the Tribunal had analyzed the nature of activity of the assessee i.e. processing of filling liquid argon gas in cylinders and held the activity not in the field of manufacturing and thus, not entitled for claiming deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act. The learned DR therefore, prayed that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any mistake apparent on record for invoking provisions of section 254(2) of the Act and therefore, the Tribunal's order may be sustained. 4. We have heard the rival ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciously considered all the issues before it and relied upon various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the jurisdictional High Court and further dissected the activities involved in the processing/manufacturing/ filling of argon gas in cylinders and with the relevant materials on record came to a thoughtful conclusion that the applicant does not deserve the benefit u/s. section 80 IA of the Act since it was not carrying on any activity of manufacturing as envisaged under the Act, we are of the considered view that there is no mistake apparent on record to invoke the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act even though the decision of the Tribunal is subsequently held to be incorrect. 5. In the result, all these four Misc. Applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
