SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Arijit Pasayat, Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
M/s India Cine Agencies - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras - Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 3649 - 3650 of 2003
Decided On : 12-11-2008
Central Excise Rules, 1944 – Central Excise Act, 1944 – Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sections 32, 80, 88 – Entitlement of benefit – In all these cases the issue is the effect of conversion of Jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in the desired sizes – Assessees contention was that the same amounted to manufacture/production as the case may be. Stand of the revenue was that it was not either manufacture or production. – In some cases the High Court held that in any event because of Item 10 of the Eleventh Schedule, no deduction was permissible. – High Court decided in favour of the revenue and therefore these appeals have been filed by the assesses. – Held, Word production or produce when used in juxtaposition with the word manufacture takes in bringing into existence new goods by a process, which may or may not amount to manufacture. – It also takes in all the byproducts, intermediate products and residual products, which emerge in the course of manufacture of goods. – Expressions manufacture and produce are normally associated with movables articles and goods, big and small but they are never employed to denote the construction activity of the nature involved in the construction of a dam or for that matter a bridge, a road and a building. – If there was no manufacturing activity, then the question of referring to Item 10 of the Eleventh Schedule for the purpose of exclusion does not arise. – Eleventh Schedule, which was inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 1977 w.e.f. 1.4.1978 has reference to Sections 32A, 32AB, 80CC (3)(a)(i), 80-I(2), 80J(4) and 88A(3)(a)(i) of the Act. – Appeals Allowed
JUDGMENT :
Arijit Pasayat, J.
In all these appeals common questions are involved relating to the entitlement of benefit in terms of Section 32AB, Section 80HH and Section 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'). In all these cases the issue is the effect of conversion of Jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in the desired sizes. The assessees' contention was that the same amounted to manufacture/production as the case may be. Stand of the revenue was that it was not either manufacture or production. In some cases the High Court held that in any event because of Item 10 of the Eleventh Schedule, no deduction was permissible. The High Court decided in favour of the revenue and therefore these appeals have been filed by the assesses.
2. As noted above, the core issue is whether activity undertaken was manufacture or production.
3. In Black's Law Dictionary, (5th Edition), the word 'manufacture' has been defined as, "the process or operation of making goods or any material produced by hand, by machinery or by other agency; by the hand, by machinery, or by art. The production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving such materials new forms, qualities, properties or combinations, whether by hand labour or machine". Thus by process of manufacture something is produced and brought into existence which is different from that, out of which it is made in the sense that the thing produced is by itself a commercial commodity capable of being sold or supplied. The material from which the thing or product is manufactured may necessarily lose its identity or may become transformed into the basic or essential properties. (See Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. M/s. Coco Fibres (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 290).
4. Manufacture implies a change but every change is not manufacture, yet every change of an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation. Naturally, manufacture is the end result of one or more processes through which the original commodities are made to pass. The nature and extent of processing may vary from one class to another. There may be several stages of processing, a different kind of processing at each stage. With each process suffered, the original commodity experiences a change. Whenever a commodity undergoes a change as a result of some operation performed on it or in regard to it, such operation would amount to processing of the commodity. But it is only when the change or a series of changes takes the commodity to the point where commercially it can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but instead is recognised as a new and distinct article that a manufacture can be said to take place. Process in manufacture or in relation to manufacture implies not only the production but also various stages through which the raw material is subjected to change by different operations. It is the cumulative effect of the various processes to which the raw material is subjected to that the manufactured product emerges. Therefore, each step towards such production would be a process in relation to the manufacture. Where any particular process is so integrally connected with the ultimate production of goods that but for that process processing of goods would be impossible or commercially in expedient, that procession in relation to the manufacture.(See Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works, Deedwana, Rajasthan (1991 (4) SCC 473).
5. Manufacture' is a transformation of an article, which is commercially different from the one, which is converted. The essence of manufacture is the change of one object to another for the purpose of making it marketable. The essential point thus is that, in manufacture something is brought into existence, which is different from that, which originally existed in the sense that the thing produced is by itself a commercially different commodity whereas in the case of proce
Chennai v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Chrestian Mica Industries Ltd. v. State of Bihar
Commissioner Income Tax v. N.C. Budharaja and Co. (1993) 204 ITR 412
Commissioner Income Tax v. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sesa Goa Ltd.
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd.
Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India
Jaipur v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works, Deedwana, Rajasthan
Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad
Saraswati Sugar Mills and others v. Haryana State Board and others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.