9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Committee has rejected the claim of the petitioner by its order dated January 6, 2000 (exhibit P3). The order so passed by the District Level Committee is as under: "PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL MANAGER, DIST. INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ERNAKULAM Present: K.G. RADHAN. Industries - Sales Tax Exemption - Application of M/s. Swapna Bona Meal Company Private Limited, Arackappady - Rejected - Orders issued. No. AB/9332/98. Dated: 6-1-2000. Read: (1) Letter dated March 26, 1998 of M/s. Swapna Bone Meal Company Private Limited, Arackappady. (2) Minutes of District Level Committee for sales tax exemption held on December 24, 1999. M/s. Swapna Bone Meal Company Private Limited is a registered SSI unit vide registration No. 25781 dated January ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ackanady, Perumbavoor, a registered SSI unit, which is engaged in manufacturing of bone meal and mutton tallow, started commercial production on September 22, 1997. The District Level Committee on sales tax exemptions held on December 24, 1999 resolved to reject their application for sales tax exemption based on the judgment in O.P. No. 4207 of 1999/(R) by Plathottam Bonemeal Industries v. State of Kerala and A.L. Sulaiman v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax [1999] KLJ 513. It was held that there is no manufacturing process in the conversion of bone to bone meal. The unit appealed before the SLC to reconsider the decision of the District Level Committee. The committee held on June 24, 2002 heard the appellant and discussed the matter in de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Revenue, would submit that by crushing of raw bones into crushed bones, there is no manufacturing activity involved, since no different commodity as such emerges from such process and therefore, the authorities under the Act are justified in rejecting the claim made by the petitioner for grant of exemption under S.R.O. No. 1729 of 1993. In support of that contention the learned Government Pleader relies upon the view expressed by the apex court in the case of A.A. Sulaiman v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax [1997] 105 STC 324 and also the observations made by a Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of the State of Tamil Nadu v. Subbaraj and Co. [1981] 47 STC 30. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Subbaraj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said to have been consumed in the process of bringing into existence the crushed bone, bone grist, bone meal, fluff or horn hoof, apart from the distinctive meaning that will have to be attributed to the word 'manufacture'. . ." The apex court in the case of A.A. Sulaiman's case [1997] 105 STC 324 while affirming the view expressed by the Madras High Court in the case of Subbaraj and Co. [1981] 47 STC 30 has stated as under: "A dealer who purchases dry bones and converts them into bone meal for sale as such in the market is not liable to pay purchase tax under section 5A(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963." At this stage it is apropos to mention that section 5A(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ("the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : (a) Crushing copra and producing coconut oil and coconut oil cake. (b) Converting timber logs into timber sizes. (c) Crushing rubble into small metal pieces. (d) Converting sodium silicate into liquid silicate. (e) Tyre-retreading (f) Cutting granite or marble slabs into smaller pieces and/or polishing them. (g) Such other process as may be notified by Government in this behalf." As a general rule, all exemptions or other concessions granted under the statute should be strictly construed as they create inequalities before the law and any interpretation adopted should not extend the benefit beyond the express language used in the notifications granting them. The meaning that requires to be given to the expression "manufacture" is p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0. That was a case pertaining to conversion of tamarind seed into tamarind powder. The question before the court was whether such conversion would amount to manufacture. The learned judges of this institution after referring to various decisions have come to the conclusion that conversion of tamarind seed into tamarind powder is manufacture. The case on hand is entirely different from the facts stated in the aforesaid decision. In the present case we are concerned with conversion of raw bones into crushed bones and in view of what has been said by the apex court in A.A. Sulaiman's case [1997] 105 STC 324, we cannot hold that such conversion would amount to a manufacturing activity. In view of the above, the appellant is not entitled t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
