Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

40. Dealing with the documents referred to by the ld. D.R., page 24 is a communication from the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana which starts with the words "It is quite difficult to give a definite percentage of rice recovery...." but thereafter proceeds to give a percentage of 70 to 73. It is, however, stated in the same communication that "the above parameters may vary to some extent depending upon climatic conditions at the time of maturity, degree of drying and milling equipment". Further, it is mentioned that the information pertains to Rubber Rollers and the figure of driage losses are from 4% to 8%. It is nobody's case that the assessee has used ultra modern equipment in its shelling unit including the rubber rollers. The Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in numerous decisions has taken the view that the opinion of the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana is not the gospel truth but only represents guidelines. Further the Bench has held that yield of rice and various by-products depends on climatic conditions, quality of paddy milled, the type of machinery used and this varies not only from State to State but also from District to District within the same State. The document at page 24, therefore, does not advance revenue's case as the same indicates percentages subject to various facts and circumstances and assuming an ideal situation. As regards page 112 of paper-book, this once again pertains to PAU, Ludhiana and the study from pages 108 to 112 is an analysis of PR-111 variety and the period apparently is the beginning of 1994 whereas we have before us assessment year 1989-90 in the first-mentioned appeal. At page 112 is the comparative data between 3 varieties i.e. PR-111, PR-110 and PR-106. The ld. DR. has heavily relied on the percentage shown i.e. 73.21 for PR-106 but it must be appreciated that neither is the period relevant nor the data and it must be seen that the percentages are worked out on the basis of data processed in laboratories as page 111 states "data recorded under artificial inoculation conditions". The other pages/documents referred to are also not found relevant once again with reference to the period or the point at issue. The ld. D.R. has been quick in highlighting percentages without taking this Bench through the entire document. For instance, page 117 relied upon is part of the documents beginning page 113 which has the heading "Proposal for release of rice varieties PR-108 and PR-109". Similarly, reference to document at page 122 is neither here nor there as it is part of the documents starting with page 118 and the learned D.R. has not adverted to either page 118 or the subsequent pages i.e. 119 to 121. Again the document at page 125 is referred to and this is part of the documents beginning page 123 and contains a proposal submitted to the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana in respect of rice variety PR-113 the period being 1998. The relevance of this proposal was not highlighted by the ld. D.R. and as already seen the period is much later to the assessment year involved in appeal. To the same effect are our observations in respect of page 129 of the department's paper-book.