TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal is as follows: ".......It is found that the appellant had effected purchase of timber, sliced the same into splints and sold the splints to various dealers among the match manufacturers. Hence, we are of the view that provisions of section 7-A cannot be applied to the purchase turnover of timber and accordingly we set aside the assessment of the purchase turnover........" It may be mentioned that the splints sold to various match manufacturers have been subjected to tax and that is not disputed before us. The contention of the Revenue seems to be that the purchase of timber for obtaining splints should be subjected to purchase tax as timber loses its character when it is sliced and splints are obtained. In other words, the conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The test laid down by the Supreme Court in that case appears to be that when there is no essential difference in identity between the original commodity and the processed article, it is not possible to say that one commodity has been consumed in the manufacture of another. 6. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Subbaraj and Co. reported in [1981] 47 STC 30 (Mad.), Ismail, C.J., as he then was, speaking for the Bench, while considering the scope of section 7-A(1)(a) held as follows: "Held, that with regard to the purchases of raw bones and the end-products which were sold locally, the Tribunal was right in holding that section 7-A(1)(a) was not attracted, as there had been no consumption of the goods purchased in the manufacture of other goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g case in any sense of the term, cannot be called timber. For, it not only became a different commercial product, but its uses were also different. It was held further in that case, "once timber was used in the manufacture of packing cases, the identity of the timber as such was lost as it stood converted by the process of manufacture into packing cases". But, on the facts, in our case, in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court and other two Division Bench judgments of this Court, we have no doubt that the Tribunal was right in holding that the purchase turnover of timber is not exigible to tax under section 7-A(1)(a) of the Act. 10.. In the result, the tax (revision) cases are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
