9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Reference made at the instance of the Commissioner Sales Tax under Section 44 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act (for short hereinafter called "the Act") by the Board of Revenue to this Court to answer following question of law:- "Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the conversion of angle iron into steel structure does not amount to a process of manufacture and therefore are liable to tax at 4% and not 12%?" 3. The respondent (assessee/dealer) at the relevant time was working as Contractors. They were awarded contract for supply of item called - "drift eliminator" to N.P.C.C. - a Government of India undertaking having their plant at Korba. This item which in te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question. 5. The Revenue (Commissioner of Sales Tax) then felt aggrieved of this order filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the CST (Appeals). It was held that since the item in question did not undergo any manufacturing process or/and any processing activity and retained its original identity of iron and steel and hence it was liable to be taxed at the rate of 4 % as "iron and steel" specified in schedule. It is against this order of the Board of Revenue, the Commissioner of Sales Tax sought reference to this Court under Section 44 of the Act. The Board of Revenue acceded to the prayer made by Revenue and accordingly made the reference to this Court to an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Court by the Board of Revenue. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the record of the case (statement of case), we are inclined to answer the referred question in negative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 9. This is what the Board held on facts while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee in the appeal and against the Revenue. 10. In our view, this is a case where there was no evidence brought on record to show as to what was the actual manufacturing process undertaken by the respondent/assessee/dealer while producing the item in question. In the absence of any evidence, the finding of the Board quoted supra that no manufacturing process was undertaken for bringi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in schedule. 13. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the State referred supra is distinguishable on facts and hence it is of no help to the State. In that case, the manufacturing process used by the assessee was explained in detail and the same was taken into consideration for holding that due to extensive manufacturing process undertaken by the assessee, the new commodity has come into existence thereby loosing the original identity of the raw material used in its manufacturing and hence the new commodity has to be taxed accordingly and cannot be treated as "iron and steel". Such is not the case here because as stated supra, in the present case, no evidence was brought on record to show and nor any finding was rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
