Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Idandas vs Anant Ramchandra Phadke Dead By L.Rs on 20 November, 1981
8. The last of the cases dealing with definition of 'manufacture' was under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in the case of Idandas v. Anant Ramchandra Phadke AIR 1982 SC 127 where the Supreme Court mentioned three tests as to what constitutes manufacture while holding that running a flour mill was used for manufacturing process under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The three tests were (i) a certain commodity should have been produced ; (ii) the process of production must involve either labour or machinery ; and (in) the end product should have a distinct character, name and use. It quoted with approval a decision of the Calcutta High Court which pointed out that even a manufactured commodity may constitute a material for working it up into a different product as, for example, both a tanner and a shoemaker could be manufacturers though the material processed is one and the same. The Supreme Court also referred to the definition in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary laying stress on deployment of 'physical labour or mechancial power'.
Ramesh Chemical Industries vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 1 January, 1980
9. However, the application of these accepted principles may give rise to disputes in a particular case. The revenue would like to point out that the preparation of food articles in a hotel, roasting of cashewnuts, blending of iron ore, addition of scent to hair oil and repacking of glucose were some of the activities which were considered to be not constituting 'manufacture' though some of these activities were treated as 'processing'. Great emphasis was laid on the case of Ramesh Chemical Industries v. Union of India 1980 Tax. LR 2327 (MP), wherein repacking of glucose was involved.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Casino (Pvt.) Ltd. on 6 October, 1972
In the case of preparation of articles of food in CIT v. Casino (P.) Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 289 the Kerala High Court found that the hotel activity was essentially a trading activity and that manufacture was incidental to such trade. It was under these circumstances that change in form of prepared food from the raw materials did not make the hotel a manufacturer. The other cases rested on their own facts and the definition under the law under which they were considered. As for glucose case strongly relied upon by the revenue, it was pointed out that it was a case of repacking and not original packing as in the assessee's case. This alone, it was claimed, would justify distinction. Further, it was a case where glucose was available in bulk commercially even otherwise. Furthermore, it was contended that both glucose and preparations thereof, came under the same entry, viz., tariff item IE under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and that decided the issue.
State Of Orissa vs Patel Saw Mill on 19 November, 1974
It was pointed out that the Orissa High Court in State of Orissa v. Patel Saw Mill [1976] 37 STC 392, distinguished this case while pointing out that logs cut into pieces would constitute a new article amounting to manufacture.
Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Section 32A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
First Leasing Co. Of India Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 30 November, 1982
Further as pointed out by the Madras Tribunal in the case of First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. {supra), the entire scheme of investment allowance contemplates relief in respect of machinery used in manufacture or production of an article or thing by a small-scale industrial undertaking or any other undertaking not producing the prohibited articles under the Eleventh Schedule. Since we have found that the machinery is used for production of a commercially different article or manufacture thereof, the machinery is entitled to investment allowance. In the view we have taken, it is not necessary for us to consider the further argument in detail on behalf of the assessee that even if the article before and after processing is considered to be the same, it would amount to production of an article or thing though not manufacture thereof.
The Central Excise Act, 1944
1