Identifiable constituent test for concessional sales tax applies even when the component is not visually distinct in the finished product

Groundnut oil sold for manufacture of vanaspati qualified for the concessional rate because it was a sale of scheduled goods to be used as a component part of another scheduled product. The Explanation to section 3(3) required only that the article be an identifiable constituent of the finished product; it did not require visual identification. Since the evidence showed groundnut oil was the major constituent of vanaspati and remained scientifically identifiable by chemical tests, the concession applied and the higher rate under section 3(1) did not.

---

---

Issues: Whether groundnut oil sold for use in the manufacture of vanaspati was a sale of goods mentioned in the First Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 to another for use by the buyer as a component part of another scheduled goods so as to qualify for the concessional rate under section 3(3), and whether such component part had to be visually identifiable in the finished product.

Analysis: Groundnut oil and vanaspati were both goods covered by the relevant First Schedule entries. The evidence showed that groundnut oil was the major constituent of vanaspati and could be identified as part of the finished product by chemical tests, even though it was not visually distinguishable. The Explanation to section 3(3) required only that the article form an identifiable constituent of the finished product; it did not impose any condition of visual identification. A construction limiting the provision to visually identifiable components would defeat the concession in many cases where the raw material is absorbed into the finished product but remains scientifically identifiable.

Conclusion: The sale of groundnut oil qualified for the concessional rate under section 3(3) of the Act, and the higher tax under section 3(1) was not applicable.

---