Higher depreciation for artificial silk machinery denied where dyeing, bleaching and printing were held not to amount to manufacture.

Machinery used only for dyeing, bleaching and printing art silk cloth already manufactured by others did not qualify as artificial silk manufacturing machinery and plant for the higher depreciation rate. The court held that such processing did not amount to manufacture or production of artificial silk cloth, because the cloth retained its character as textile despite chemical changes. The enhanced 15% depreciation entry applied only to machinery falling within the specified manufacturing category, so the assessee's claim was rejected and the reference was answered against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to depreciation at 15% on machinery used for dyeing, bleaching and printing art silk cloth, treating it as artificial silk manufacturing machinery and plant.

Analysis: The machinery was used only for dyeing, bleaching and printing of art silk cloth already manufactured by others. Such processing did not amount to manufacture of artificial silk cloth, and the cloth retained its character as textile despite chemical changes. The higher depreciation rate was available only to machinery falling within the specified category of artificial silk manufacturing machinery and plant.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to depreciation at 15% and the answer to the referred question was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in the negative and the claim for higher depreciation was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Dyeing, bleaching and printing of cloth already manufactured by others does not constitute manufacture or production of artificial silk cloth for the purpose of the higher depreciation entry.

---