2003 (12) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tic essence being but one form of a blended flavouring concentrate was a blended flavouring concentrate before the amendment as also after the amendment. The order of the Tribunal holding that the assessee, despite being engaged in the manufacture of a product which is covered by entry No. 5 of the Eleventh Schedule, is entitled to investment allowance, therefore, cannot be sustained. - - - - - Dated:- 10-12-2003 - Judge(s) : R. JAYASIMHA BABU., S. R. SINGHARAVELU. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by R. Jayasimha Babu J. - Investment allowance for the assessment year 1983-84 was denied to the assessee, a manufacturer of aerated waters under the brand name of "TORINO", such manufacturing activity having been carried .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... her synthetic essence is a blended flavouring concentrate. It has been stated in that judgment that there was no dispute that the assessee was not using blended flavouring concentrate. That was a case which arose under the Central Excise Act and any concession made therein by the excise authorities would not bind the Revenue here. That judgment, in our view, does not lay down the law correctly. "Blended flavouring concentrates" would take within their fold synthetic essences which are concentrates used for providing flavour and which concentrates are blended. The Eleventh Schedule to the Income-tax Act contains a list of articles and things for the manufacture or production of which machinery is installed which would not be eligible for g .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... date having been fixed as the date from which it will take effect, even when it is not made retrospective, if found to be clarificatory in the sense that even without the aid of that amendment the unamended provision was capable of comprehending what was sought to be made clear by the amendment, the amendment made subsequently does not have the effect of restricting the meaning of the original entry and the width of the entry remains the same. The facet of its content which had either been misconstrued or had not been recognised is only brought out when the clarificatory amendment is effected. The fact that this amendment was made effective from April 1, 1988, therefore, does not in any way have the effect of denuding the original entry .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X