TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 746X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacture or not. The question may be of degree and extent of change and though, the issue may at times be debatable, by applying the relevant tests, the Tribunal has recorded a finding and such finding cannot be held to be perverse, it cannot be held that a substantial question of law arises.The Tribunal has applied the correct test and recorded a finding that the process undertaken by the assessee involved manufacture. Merely because a different view can be taken will not be a ground to hold that a substantial question of law arises. In a recent order of this Court in CIT v. Mahesh Chadra Sharma [ 2008 (10) TMI 68 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] , dealing with an identical issue. Thus, the question raised cannot be held to be a sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e have considered the rival submission carefully. The crux of the dispute i.e., presently before us is to establish as to whether or not the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of an article or thing so as to qualify for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. Before we proceed to dilate on the legal position, it would be appropriate to understand the fact position with regard to the process canvassed by the assessee. The finished product of the assessee is automobile filter element. The raw materials used are :- 1. Filter Paper 2. Steel Sheet components (a )Centre Tube/Outer Retainer (b )End Caps. 3. Adhesives. The manufacturing process considered by the lower authorities is detailed as below :- uP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... components and by carrying intermittent processes, assembles them together so that they can work as one equipment which is termed as a Semi-finished Automotive Filter. The Semi-finished Automotive Filter, which the assessee manufactures as a result of various processes is a product, which is distinct by character as also in its use than each of raw materials. This is for the reason that none of the components or the raw material used can partake the character of or be a substitute for the functions performed by the finished product of the assessee. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue and perused the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that the activity of the assessee was merely assembling certain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertaken by the assessee involved manufacture. Merely because a different view can be taken will not be a ground to hold that a substantial question of law arises. 7. In a recent order of this Court in CIT v. Mahesh Chadra Sharma [IT Appeal No. 505 of 2007, dated 31-10-2008], dealing with an identical issue, it was observed :- 9. The question whether an activity involves manufacture, has been gone into in several judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court including Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills AIR 1963 SC 791, para 14, Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) v. M/s. PIO Food Packers AIR 1980 SC 1227, Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 662 and M/s. Ujagar Prints v. Union of Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
