1988 (3) TMI 60

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e-respondent herein had purchased fresh frog legs and after removing the skin, washing and removing dirt etc. and freezing it for the purpose of avoiding decomposition and decay, the said frog legs were exported. The assessee claimed that they were entitled to the benefit of Section 5(3) of the Central Sales tax Act, 1956. 3. In order to appreciate the question it is necessary to refer to the findings of the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that what was purchased by the assessee was fresh frog legs and, after freezing it for the purpose of avoiding decomposition and decay, it was exported. It was, therefore, held by the Tribunal that what was purchased as fresh frog legs was exported by the assessee. It was contended on behalf of the State th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e the question was whether shrimps, prawns and lobsters subjected to processing like cutting of heads and tails, peeling, deveining, cleaning and freezing ceased to be the same commodity or become different commodity for the purpose of the Central Sales Tax Act. This Court expressed the view that the test applied for the purpose of determining whether a commodity subjected to processing retained its original character and identity is as to whether the processed commodity is regarded in the trade by those who deal in it as distinct in identity from the original commodity or it is regarded, commercially and in the trade as same as the original commodity. 5. Every processing does not bring about a change in the character and identity of the c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ere not, but still both are, in commercial parlance, shrimps, prawns and lobsters. 7. The aforesaid view also finds ample support from the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in East Texas Motor Freight Lines v. Frozen Food Express [100 L Bd. 917 at 923], where the question was whether dressed and frozen chicken was a commercially distinct article from the original chicken. The United States Supreme Court held that it was not a commercially distinct article but was commercially and in common parlance the same article as chicken. The United States Supreme Court held that killing, dressing and freezing a chicken is certainly a change in the commodity. But it is no more drastic a change than the change which takes place in milk .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X