Bombay High Court
Cit vs Dimac Industries on 22 January, 2008
Bench: F.I. Rebello, R.S. Mohite
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has framed three questions of law. However, for deciding this appeal the relevant question of law is (b) and the same is reproduced as under:
(b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee's activity can be considered as manufacturing activity since the assessee is only crushing the manganese ore to the manganese powder ?
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeal preferred by the respondent herein was pleased to hold that the act of the respondent amounts to manufacture by recording a finding of the various acts involved and the use in various industrial or finished products pursuant to the requirement of manganese in different concentrates or percentages. The acts of assorting at input level, blending, crushing, removal of silica and separation of Fe+FeO and chemical testing in lab for ensuring required quality, that it was held all are an integral process of manufacture. In other words, what the Commissioner (Appeals) held was that the product after it underwent the processes would be a different and commercially distinct product.
3. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd. as affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd. and confirmed the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. In our opinion, considering that the expression "production" is of much wider amplitude than the expression manufacture and the finding, of fact recorded, even if it is held that the act does not amount to manufacture it still will amount to production.
5. We therefore, on the finding of fact recorded are of the view that no fault can be found in the judgment of the Tribunal and consequently the question of law as framed would not arise. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.