Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether coal briquettes manufactured from coal dust, on which tax had already been paid, were liable to tax as a different commercial commodity or were exempt as the same commodity of coal.
Analysis: The statutory definition of "manufacture" under the U.P. Trade Tax Act was wide and included producing, making, altering, processing, treating or adapting goods. The Court distinguished mere processing from manufacture, noting that the decisive question was whether the process resulted in a distinct commercial commodity. Coal dust was found to lose its identity in the manufacture of coal briquettes, which emerged with different shape, character, combustibility and market identity. The earlier payment of tax on the raw material did not prevent levy on the manufactured product. The declared goods provisions under the Central Sales Tax Act did not assist the assessee because the commodity in question, as found by the Tribunal, was a different taxable product after manufacture.
Conclusion: Coal briquettes were held to be a different commercial commodity liable to tax, and the revision failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory definition of manufacture is wide, a commodity produced from taxed raw material is taxable as a separate product if the manufacturing process causes the raw material to lose its identity and a distinct commercial commodity emerges.