TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the Tribunal was that according to the Notification No. 5025 dated 30th June, 1979 exemption could be claimed only in regard to processing of cereal and pulses and not in regard to manufacture of bread and biscuits. This is how the order of the assessing officer was restored by the Sales Tax Tribunal. Aggrieved the assessee has come up in revision to this Court against the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal. Notification No. 5025 was issued by the U.P. Government in Hindi and exemption was provided thereunder for as many as 21 items. Item No. 10 of the Hindi notification is as follows: "Anaj avem dal ki, kutayee, chhatayee aur safayee adi (processings)." The said notification was translated in English by the U.P. Government and item No. 10 in English version is as follows: "Processing of cereals and purses;". The argument on behalf of the assessee is that manufacture of bread and biscuits is nothing but a processing of cereals. It was argued that manufacture of bread and biscuits is the result of several treatments given to cereals and that processing may ultimately result into manufacture. So the question for consideration is: what is the proper construction of the notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 of the notification the Revenue urged that the principle of ejusdem generis be involved. Thrashing, sifting and cleaning are the modes of processing and therefore, it cannot be said that there is a conflict between the Hindi and the English versions of the notification. In my view, the Revenue is right in submitting that on the aforesaid fact principle of ejusdem generis can and must be applied. When specific words precede the words "etc." and "processing" in the Hindi version then the word "processing" will be controlled by such specific words and this is what was held in the case of Rajagopala Pandarathar v. Thirupathi Pillai AIR 1923 Mad 511. The Madras High Court dealt with a question of construction of a mortgage-deed on which the suit was based. It was conceded before the Madras High Court that the decree directed to the sale of property, described in the mortgage-deed. The first defendant contended that his residence or the buildings constituting the palace are not included in the description contained in the decree, and cannot, therefore, be sold under it. On the other hand, the plaintiff argued that those buildings should not be excluded from the sale. So the question wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification No. 5025 follow an enumeration of specific words, then they will be controlled by those specific words and wider meaning to the word 'processing" cannot be given. Construing the word "processing" so, I hold that the word "processing" occurring in item No. 10 of the notification may embrace only such processing which are in the nature of thrashing, sifting and cleaning or the likewise. Surely this type of processing will not include manufacture of bread and biscuits. Then the question is: whether processing includes manufacturing. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Delhi Cloth Mills AIR 1963 SC 791 specifically rejected the contention that processing and manufacture can be equated. At page 794 of the report, Das Gupta, J., speaking for the Court observed: "To say this is to equate 'processing' to 'manufacture' and for this we can find no warrant in law. The word 'manufacture' used as a verb is generally understood to mean as 'bringing into existence a new substance' and does not mean merely 'to produce some change in a substance', however minor in consequence the change may be. This distinction is well brought about in a passage thus quoted in Permanen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral stages of processing and perhaps a different kind of processing at each stage. With each process suffered, the original commodity experiences a change. But it is only when the change, or a series of changes, take 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." The authority does not help the assessee in any way. In substance what the Supreme Court ruled down is that a manufacture is the end result of one or more processes. It means that several processes precede a manufacture. It, therefore, clearly shows that all types of processing do not amount to manufacture. So, merely from the word "processing", occurring in item No. 10 of the notification, no inference can be drawn that that word includes manufacture. The inference drawn from the word "processing" by the assessee that it means manufacturing is absolutely without justification. In short, a manufacture is the result of one or more processing but processing does not include manufacture always and everywhere. Lastly, learned counsel for the assessee heavily relied on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
