9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll be a ‘manufacture’ within the meaning of section 2(2) of the Act 2000 read with section 2(e-1) of the Act 1948. The Court also finds that the revisionist has been issued a license under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 made under the Central Excise Act for operating as a manufacturer of excisable goods at “C.N.G. Mother Station etc.”, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, which also goes to show that he is a manufacturer even as per the definition of the term under the Excise Act and the Rules thereunder, but the Court is not persuaded only by this document, rather, it is persuaded by the reasoning already given - also the observation in the order of the Tribunal that by depositing the entry tax the revisionist had admitted its liability in this regard, is misconceived, especially as there can be no estoppel against law, considering the fact that the Notification dated 18.2.2003 had been issued under section 4- B of the Act 2000 and had the force of law. It is held that the revisionist is a manufacturer of C.N.G. and P.N.G. and consequently it is entitled to the benefit of notification dated 18.2.2003 - revision allowed. - TRADE TAX REVISIO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acturer of C.N.G. and P.N.G. Relevant extract of the said determination is quoted hereinbelow. Surprisingly the stand of the revisionist in the said proceedings was that the process of compressing natural gas to convert C.N.G. and P.N.G. did not involve any chemical change nor physical change, therefore, as C.N.G. and P.N.G. was not a chemically different identity than natural gas, it did not amount to manufacturing of C.N.G. or P.N.G., therefore, not liable to trade-tax and the stand of the department as evinced in the report requisitioned under section 35 by the Additional Commissioner (Law), Trade Tax, as mentioned in his order was that the process involved was a manufacture , however, before this Court when the question of entry-tax being levied has arisen, the stand is diametrically opposed, i.e. the revisionist, based on the order under section 35 dated 20.4.2007 and even otherwise, now says that it is a manufacturer and had imported the capital goods and machinery from outside the State in the local area for manufacturing C.N.G. and P.N.G., therefore, in view of the Notification dated 18.2.2003 it was exempt from the said tax, whereas, the Tribunal has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufacturing dealers from Entry Tax if the goods etc. referred therein are brought into a local area from outside for use in their manufacturing i.e. for manufacture by such industries. Now, the term Manufacture has not been defined in the Act 2000, however, as it has been used in the Notification dated 18.2.2003 issued under section 4-B, therefore, in view of section 2(2) of the Act 2000 it will have to be understood in the light of section 2(e-1) and 2(ee) of the Act 1948 which contains a definition of Manufacture and Manufacturer . In view of the aforesaid provision it is necessary to see the definition of Manufacture and Manufacturer as contained in section 2(e-1) and 2(ee) of the Act 1948, which reads as under. Section 2(e-1). Manufacture means producing, making, mining, collecting, extracting, altering, ornamenting, finishing, or otherwise processing, treating or adapting any goods; but does not include such manufactures or manufacturing processes as may be prescribed. Section 2(ee). Manufacturer in relation to any goods means the dealer who makes the first sale of such goods in the State after their manufacture and includes: ( i) a dealer w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced merely by using a binding material such as clay or molasses along with the coal, and hence he submitted that the identity does not change. We regret, we cannot agree with his submission. Firstly, we do not agree that the coal briquettes are the same commercial commodity as coal. In our view, coal is a raw material for making coal briquettes. The method of manufacturing coal briquettes has been stated above, and this certainly is processing, treating or adapting the coal. The appellant manufactures coal briquettes by compiling the hard coke breeze mechanically with the help of cinders, which is usually 5% of the total hard coke breeze. In the compilation of the hard coke breeze, 95% of the hard coke breeze, which is known as coal dust or breeze coke is taken which is compiled with the help of clay and molasses. Hence, in our opinion, coal briquettes is a different commercial commodity from coal. Moreover, even if it is not a different commercial commodity, the process of making coal briquettes will amount to a manufacture as it is processing, treating or adapting coal. In our opinion, by the processing of coal to make coal briquettes, the coal dust loses its identity. Coa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l gas in ordinary commercial parlance and are not commercially different items. For convenience the stand of the department in this regard as referred in the order under section 35 dated 20.4.2007 is again being quoted : After compressing the natural gas by a process which has been dealt with in the order of the Commissioner dated 20.4.2007 quoted hereinabove the same is ready for being sold as fuel. Without such process of compression, Natural Gas cannot be sold as fuel nor as P.N.G. to be transmitted to households through pipelines for cooking. If a person wants to buy C.N.G. or P.N.G., he will have to be sold the said goods, and not natural gas in its natural form. The Tribunal has gravely erred in being persuaded by the definition of Natural Gas as contained in the petroleum and Natural Gas Laboratories Board Act 2006, consequently, it has arrived at an erroneous conclusion. The process involved in making C.N.G. and P.N.G. as referred hereinabove involves its manufacture and the product has a different commercial identify. Even if it did not have a different commercial identity, even then, in view of the decision in the case of Kumar Motors (supra) referred abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
