9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... job entrusted to a Central Excise Officer is to examine the nature of activity done by the assessee, when he claims that the activity is a manufacturing process. The Central Excise authorities invariably visit the facility established by the assessee to gain first hand knowledge about the claim made by the assessee that they are into manufacture. In the present case taken a step in the direction as would normally be done by the Central Excise Officers, probably, the finding might have been wholly different or slightly different or it could have been a well reasoned order. The Tribunal as a last fact finding authority, was bound to examine the full facts. Tribunal holds that there is no change in substance used in live crab or used it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .167 of 2019 I.T.A.No.500/Mds/2016 2008-09 T.C.A.No.168 of 2019 I.T.A.No.501/Mds/2016 2009-10 T.C.A.No.172 of 2019 I.T.A.No.502/Mds/2016 2010-11 T.C.A.No.176 of 2019 I.T.A.No.499/Mds/2016 2006-07 T.C.A.No.180 of 2019 I.T.A.No.503/Mds/2016 2011-12 T.C.A.No.185 of 2019 I.T.A.No.498/Mds/2016 2005-06 2. These appeals were admitted on 13.03.2019 on the following Substantial Question of Law: 1. Wheth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessment Year 2008-09, in the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer by order dated 24.12.2011, declined to grant relief to the assessee under Section 10B of the Act, on the ground that the assessee failed to satisfy the conditions in Section 10B(2)(i) 10B(2)(iii) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant / assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai [ CIT(A) for brevity], which was dismissed, following the decision in the assessee s own case for the Assessment Year 2006-07 dated 16.12.2015. Aggrieved by such order, the assessee preferred appeal to the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the impugned order. Thus, the assessee is before us, challenging the order of the Tribunal for al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Further, it is submitted that the assessee being a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), the definition of the word Manufacture as contained in Section 2(r) of the Special Economic Act ['SEZ Act' for brevity] would apply and conversion of live crab into edible canned product would be entitled for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. Further, it is submitted that the definition of the term Manufacture was inserted in the Act with effect from 01.04.2009 and it is only for undertakings which begins business after 01.04.2009 i.e., with effect from 01.04.2010. The statute has clearly distinguished that the processing, preservation and packaging of marine products would not amount to manufacture or production of article or thing with in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stake committed by both the authorities and the Tribunal is in not examining the nature of activity of the assessee before referring to the various decisions, which according to the Tribunal would result in the assessee s appeal being dismissed. The first and foremost job entrusted to a Central Excise Officer is to examine the nature of activity done by the assessee, when he claims that the activity is a manufacturing process. The Central Excise authorities invariably visit the facility established by the assessee to gain first hand knowledge about the claim made by the assessee that they are into manufacture. Had the Assessing officer in the present case taken a step in the direction as would normally be done by the Central Excise Officers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on hand, more particularly, after we had gone through the Power point presentation given by the learned counsel for the appellant / assessee, explaining the various stages of their activity. 12. The Tribunal referred to a decision of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of ACE Multi Axes Systems Ltd., Vs. DCIT reported in [2014] 367 ITR 266 (Kar). We are not cleared as to the finding rendered by the Tribunal in Paragraph 10.2 as to how they distinguished the said decision. As pointed out earlier, the Assessing Officer, CIT(A) and the Tribunal did not examine the facts. There appears to be no visit to the facility of the assessee, which is stated to be in Tuticorin. 13. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the matter r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
