Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1985 (2) TMI 268

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ayment of duty under Notification No. 179/77, dated 18-6-1977, the goods manufactured by them being covered by Tariff Item No. 68 and in relation to the manufacture of which no process was ordinarily carried on with the aid of power. The refund claim by M/s. Standard Fireworks Industries related to the period 13-7-1977 to 10-11-1978 and that of M/s. Rajaratnam Fireworks related to the period 12-7-1977 to 9-11-1978. The refund claims were rejected by the Assistant Collector and the rejection was upheld by the Appellate Collector, Madras. It is the revision petitions filed against the said orders by the two appellants to the Government of India that, on transfer, are being dealt with and disposed of as appeals before this Tribunal. 3. Shri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nts purchase in bulk all materials required for their manufacturing operations and store them at particular places from where from time to time materials such as papers, chemicals, iron filings, coal, gum, steel wires are sent to other different premises under the control and management of parties totally unconnected with these appellants, for the purpose of being cut to size or shredded into small .strips of paper or otherwise subject to the necessary treatment and that after such treatment they were being brought back to the same godowns and stored therein. Thereafter the raw materials so prepared were issued to the respective factories for being converted into fireworks, no power being used in the said factories at any time. Shri Marasim .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en applied to the present cases; would not support the appellants. Shri Raghavan Iyer s contention is that the word process used in the Exemption Notification would cover the series of operations required in the manufacture of the commodity and that preparation of raw material would also be covered by the said phrase and since the said process, under the notification, should be in or in relation to the manufacture, the fact that the said process takes place outside the factory would not be relevant in construing the notification. 8. In the Jain Soap Mills case the applicability of the exemption notification was denied by the department on the basis that the soap stock purchased by the assessee having been manufactured with the aid of p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e and to their specifications, though by a third party. Therefore, the said conversion process would be really by these appellants themselves though they were engaging the services of others in that process of conversion. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the appellants cannot rely upon the observations in the Jain Soap Mills case as supporting their present stand. 9. So far as the Nirma Chemical Works case is concerned, the decision in favour of the assessee was reached in that case on the basis that no change had been brought about in the raw material until it reached the reaction vessel and, therefore, no process of manufacture can be said to have taken place till that stage and since it was admitted that no power was used s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he aid of power. The contention that such a process should also have been carried out within the factory of the appellants themselves does not carry conviction. As earlier observed, in the Jain Soap Mills case also the use of power was not within the factory of the assessee but in the factory of the person who had manufactured the soap stock and from whom the assessee had purchased the soap stock. But the Court had not ruled in favour of the assessee on the ground that the use of power was not within the factory. The relevant fact taken into consideration by the Court was that the assessee had nothing to do with the manufacture of the soap stock or the use of power therein, the assessee being merely the purchaser from that manufacturer. Tho .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates