Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Following the same, the Tribunal held that what was purchased by the assessee was not a potable one and but for the blending, the commodity could not have become a saleable commodity. Consequently, the raw materials, even though are not manufactured by the assessee, yet there is nexus of the process by blending to make it a saleable commodity totally different from that of the original obtained. The Tribunal also referred to the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. PREMIER TOBACCO PACKERS P. LTD. reported in 284 ITR 222 and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. BUDHARAJA & CO. reported in 204 ITR 412 and held that the assessee was entitled to the relief under Section 80-IB being small scale industry engaged in the production of IMFL from rectified spirit. The Tribunal also pointed out that the end product is totally different and is commercially different commodity than the major input rectified spirit, which is not fit for human consumption. Hence, the changes made to the original product results in a new different commodity, which is recognised as to in the trade.

" It is to be understood as meaning the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving such materials new forms, qualities or combinations whether by hand labour or machines. If the change made in the article results in a new and different article then it would amount to a manufacturing activity. "

The Apex Court pointed out to the various processes and held that conversion of the raw berry into coffee seeds was a manufacturing activity; that coffee bean had an independent identity from the raw material i.e., berry from which they were produced. Considering the various process involved, the Supreme Court held that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance under Section 32-A. The Apex Court held that "if a commercially different article or commodity results after processing, then it would be a manufacturing activity. "

13. While dealing with the question as to whether the processes of bleaching, dyeing, printing, sizing, shrink proofing, water proofing rubberising or organic processing carried on in respect of cotton or man made grey fabric amounted to 'manufacture' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, the Apex Court, in the decision reported in 179 ITR 317 (UJAGAR PRINTS Vs. UNION OF INDIA), held that the generally accepted test to find out whether there was manufacturing was to see whether the application of processes brought out a change to take the commodity to a commercially different and distinct commodity that it could no longer be considered as the original commodity. The said decision was applied in 251 ITR 323 (ASPINWALL & CO. LTD. Vs. CIT) and again by the Apex Court in (2006) 12 SCC 468 (ORIENT PAPER & INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. STATE OF M.P.). The law thus declared when applied to the facts herein, show that the end product is commercially different from the rectified spirit which is not fit for human consumption. The Tribunal, as a final fact finding authority, held that the changes made to the original product results in a different commercial commodity recognised as to in the trade. It may be seen that the assessee placed reliance on the decision reported in (1990) 1 SCC 109 (SYNTHETICS AND CHEMICALS LTD. Vs. STATE OF U.P.). At paragraph 74 of the said decision, the Apex Court referred to the ISI specifications dividing ethyl alcohol into several kinds of alcohol. It also pointed out as follows: