9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 957X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Tribunal is correct in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chogala and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India 1981 U.P.T.C. 702?" 2. Hence, these appeals. 3. The case of the respondent-assessee was that it was engaged in blending and packing of tea and thereafter offering the same for sale. The same did not involve any process or manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for the sake of brevity). 4. Therefore, blending of tea which was sold by the respondent-assessee as a retailer did not come within the scope and ambit of the said definition inasmuch as the tea sold by the respondent-assessee was not a new product altogether. Therefore, there was no manufacturing process as such and neither was any other process involved and consequently, the product tea sold by the assessee did not come within the definition of 'manufacture'. Hence, the High Court answered Question No. 1 in favour of the assessee and held that the assessee was actually selling tea made from blending of tea which did not result in manufacture of a new commercial commodity as the tea which was sold remained te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any process and much less a manufacturing process. 8. Learned senior counsel submitted that the impugned orders would not call for any interference as the judgments cited by the learned senior counsel and learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of U.P. would not apply to the case at hand, firstly, because each of those judgments turns on its own facts and secondly, the peculiar facts of these cases would not require an application of the aforesaid judgments as such. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee contended that there is no merit in these appeals and the same may be dismissed. 9. Having heard learned senior counsel for the respective parties at the outset, we extract the definition of 'manufacture' as it appears in Section 2(e-1) of the Act: "2.(e-1) 'manufacture' means producing, making, mining, collecting, extracting, altering, ornamenting, finishing or otherwise processing, treating or adapting any goods; but does not include such manufacture or manufacturing processes as may be prescribed;" 10. A reading of the said definition would indicate that the expression 'manufacture' is defined to mean certain procedures or processe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the assessees cannot, since the date of the purchases, be regarded as 'purchased within the meaning of proviso to clause (a) of Section 8 of the Act. There is not even application of mechanical force so as to subject the commodity to a process, manufacture, development, or preparation. The commodity has remained in the same condition,. It is true that in the preparation of the tea mixture which is marketed, there may be some skill involved. But that, in our judgment, cannot be regarded as processing within the meaning of the proviso... 4..It cannot however be said that in the preparation of tea mixture there is any alteration in the goods. Undoubtedly by mixing up the different varieties of tea purchased by the assessees there resulted a mixture in which the individuality of the components was obscured, but that in our judgment, is not alteration within the meaning of the Act. The alteration contemplated by the legislature is some alteration in the nature or character of the goods." 12. Applying the aforesaid dicta, this Court noted that the blending and packing of tea did not involve a process within the meaning of the expression 'manufacture.' It was accordingly held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed if that word is interpreted in its literal sense. But, at the same time, the section should be so interpreted to mean only such of the various processes referred to in the definition and applied to the goods as are of such a character as to have an impact on the nature of the goods. This is indeed made clear by the closing words of the definition which refer to 'manufacture or manufacturing processes'." 14. As far as the judgment of this Court in Chowgule & Co. Private Limited is concerned it is necessary to point out that in the said case the facts were that there was an agreement for sale of a particular type of ore. In order to sell the contracted produce, namely the contracted ore, it was necessary to mix different quantities of ore by a process in order to bring about the product which was contracted for. It was in those circumstances that this Court held that a commercially different and distinct commodity was agreed to be sold which required processing of different types of ores in a particular quantity. Hence, in that context, this Court held that the judgment in Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. v. State of Bombay did not lay down the correct law. 15. However, we wish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
