DIPAK KUMAR SEN, J.

( 1 ) THIS reference under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, initiated at the instance of the assessee in respect of the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 involves the question whether the assessee. The Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. , Calcutta, who manufactures and processes wire rods will be entitled to rebate allowed under the 1965 Finance Act and deduction allowed in the 1966 Finance Act incorporating Section 80e in the Income-tax Act, 1961, by reason of its products, namely, wire rods, coming within the definition of the item or an article or thing in item 1 of Part III of the 1965 Finance Act and under item 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. The description of item 1 in both Part III of the 1965 Finance Act as also in the Fifth Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is as follows : "iron and steel (Metal), ferro alloys and special steel. "

( 2 ) THE facts found and/or admitted as appearing in the statement of the case and the annexures thereto may be shortly stated as follows : the assessee manufactures steel wire rods in coils and straight lengths. These wire rods are sold as such and are also further processed in wire mills for the manufacture of annealed wire, galvanised wire, barbed wire, nails, bolts, nuts and rivets.

( 3 ) IN the assessments for the said assessment years the assessee claimed that its product, that is, wire rods, came within item 1 of the list of articles specified in Part III of the First Schedule under the Finance Act, 1965, and, therefore, it was entitled to the extra rebate for the assessment year 1965-66. For the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, the assessee claimed deduction on similar provisions under the subsequent Finance Act of 1966 read with Section 80e and the Fifth Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For the assessment year 1965-66 the Income-tax Officer rejected the assessee's claim holding that the assessee only manufactured products of iron and steel and such products did not come within the said item 1 in the specified list in Part III of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1965, and as such the assessee was not entitled to the extra rebate.

( 4 ) FOR the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, the Income-tax Officer did not allow the deduction claimed without any further discussion on the subject.

( 5 ) ON appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision of the Income-tax Officer.

( 6 ) THERE was a further appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. The contentions of the assessee before the Tribunal were again that the articles manufactured by the assessee came within item 1 of the specified list of articles under Part III of the Finance Act, 1965, and also under item 1 of the Fifth Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

( 7 ) IT was contended that the industry of iron and steel as envisaged under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, covered all kinds of undertakings engaged in producing articles itemised in the First Schedule. The assessee relied on the chemical definition of "steel" as appearing in the Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology.

( 8 ) IT was contended that the meaning of the expressions used in the statute should be understood in the commercial sense and not in the technical or chemical sense.

( 9 ) PROVISIONS in other statutes were cited and it was contended that the assessee in any event was an industry in iron and steel and as such deemed to be a part of the iron and steel industry. The assessee was in fact registered under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, as an iron and steel industry. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry had issued a certificate in favour of the assessee describing the assessee as a scheduled industry under the item "iron and steel". On the strength of a public notice dated the 22nd December, 1966, issued under the Import Trade Control Act, 1947, the assessee was issued licence under the Import Trade Control. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document