Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + SC VAT and Sales Tax - 2023 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 943 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxProcess amounting to manufacture or not - mixture of the base paint with different colours, results in a new product or not - Revenue contended that the sale of paints which had undergone mixing (through a computerised process with the aid of a DTS machine) amounted to ‘manufacture’, thereby resulting in a new product, which was a fresh incidence of taxation - HELD THAT:- In Mahalaxmi Stores [2002 (11) TMI 112 - SUPREME COURT], this court relied on previous decisions such as Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Pio Food Packers [1980 (5) TMI 30 - SUPREME COURT], and Chowgule and Company(P) Limited Vs. Union of India [1980 (11) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT] to state that the manufacturing process can vary, and that the process of producing every type of variation, or finishing of goods, would not amount to ‘manufacture’ as contained in the statute unless it resulted in the emergence of a new commercial commodity. In Sonhbadra [2006 (8) TMI 304 - SUPREME COURT], this court while deciding the facts of the case before it cited a large number of decisions rendered in the context of what was meant by ‘manufacture.’ This court specifically noticed in Union of India V. Delhi Cloth and General Mills [1962 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] that ‘manufacture’ meant bringing into existence a ‘new’ substance and did not mean merely to bring about some change in the substance. In Mahalaxmi Stores, it was held that processing or variation/finishing of goods would not per se amount to manufacture unless it resulted in the emergence of a new commercial commodity. In the present case, the findings based on the expert’s evidence are that the base paint was mixed with colouring as an additive. Both of these had suffered tax. The resultant article i.e., the paint of a different shade, did not result in a new commercial product. In common parlance, the new product was nothing else but ‘paint’, and not a different article. The High Court did not fall into error - Appeal dismissed.
|