9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 1034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct and the ultimate bottling of the refined LPG in cylinders for public consumption. In the opinion of the company, such bottling of LPG thus constitutes a manufacturing process. It alleges that respondent No. 1 without appreciating that the bottling process involves a manufacturing process wrongly rejected its (the company's) prayer for amendment of the R.C. The company then moved the two successive revisional forums (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) against such order of rejection of its prayer. But the revising authorities also rejected the company's prayer. As the last resort the company moved another revision application before the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Durgapur (respondent No. 4); but the said petition also met the same fate. Hence, the company has filed the instant application before this Tribunal challenging the orders of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. 2.. According to the respondents, the process of bottling, as undertaken by the bottling plants like that of the company, is pure and simple filling up of gas cylinders for public consumption and does not conform to a manufacturing process. Hence, they defend the impugned orders. 3.. The issue before us is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an incompetent forum are of no consequence and secondly because none of these pleas can stand to scrutiny. We fully endorse the view of Mr. Goswami because the 1994 Act does not conceive of a third revisional forum. Even Mr. Bose is fair enough to concede that rule 244(2) which prescribes the rules for revision of orders contemplates only two tiers of revisional forums. We find that against an order by a Commercial Tax Officer or an Inspector the first revision application lies before the Assistant Commissioner (vide clause (a) to sub-rule (2) of rule 244), whereas against such revisional order passed by the Assistant Commissioner the second revisional application lies before the Deputy Commissioner [vide clause (c) to the sub-rule]. Again, when the original order to be challenged in a revision is by the Assistant Commissioner, the first revision application lies before the Deputy Commissioner [vide clause (b) of the subrule], whereas against the first revising order by the Deputy Commissioner the second revision lies before the Additional Commissioner [vide clause (d) of the sub-rule]. In the instant case before us, the order rejecting the prayer for amendment of the R.C. was pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, Mr. Bose sought time to produce technical literature on the industrial process of bottling of LPG, in order to show that the processes enumerated in sub-paras D, E, F and G of para 6 of the application are essential parts of the bottling process. But after two adjournments Mr. Bose has expressed his inability to produce any such literature. It is not the case of the company that LPG, as received by it through the tankers from the manufacturer, is in a state different from what other bottling plants in the country get, so that it (the company) has to subject the contents of such tankers to some additional processes which other bottling plants are not required to do. Undisputedly, the only "project report" in relation to its (the company's) bottling plant, pressed into service before the Commercial Tax Officer and the first two competent revisional authorities, is the one which has been annexed to the affidavit-inopposition as annexure A. The relevant part of this report dealing with the technology of bottling process runs thus: "The process of filling LPG in cylinders is simple, standardised and common. The process consists of transfer of LPG gas from LPG bullets (tankers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etations of the Supreme Court. 9.. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Harbilas Rai and Sons [1968] 21 STC 17, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the word "manufacture" has various shades of meaning, and in the context of sales tax legislation, if the goods to which some labour is applied remain essentially the same commercial article, it cannot be said that the final product is the result of manufacture. Again, in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Pio Food Packers [1980] 46 STC 63, the Supreme Court has observed that it is only when a change or a series of changes, take the commodity to the point where commercially it can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but instead is recognised as a new and distinct article, a manufacture is said to have taken place. We have already said from the project report that what the company does is the transfer of LPG from big containers to fill in small containers like cylinders, without any characteristic change of the contents. Mr. Bose has referred to a few reported decisions, but in all these cases except one the courts concerned in their respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntiate his claim sought adjournments to produce standard technical literature or at least to produce a certificate from the supplier supporting the company's claim of mixing E.M. gas to make it present in LPG in requisite percentage. But even after two consecutive adjournment Mr. Bose has failed to produce any such document and has ultimately given up the plea relating to addition of E.M. gas to LPG. Mr. Bose has shown us a document to prove that on one occasion the applicant-company purchased E.M. gas. According to Mr. Goswami, this document has been procured only for fabricating evidence to prop up its story of blending E.M. gas and the document all alone showing a solitary instance of purchase, is not capable of proving that the applicant is at all mixing or is required to mix such gas to LPG. Moreover, Mr. Goswami has produced a letter from the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in short, the Corporation). In this letter the Corporation makes a candid declaration that E.M. gas is added to LPG at their end and that there is no facility of mixing E.M. gas to LPG at the bottling plants. This letter goes to attest the fact that in the bottling plant only liquid LPG is filled up into cy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
