Manufacturing exemption for centrifuged latex denied where raw latex and processed latex were treated as the same commodity classification.

Conversion of raw rubber latex into centrifuged latex was held not to constitute the manufacturing activity required for exemption under S.R.O. No. 1727/1993 and S.R.O. No. 1728/1993. The statutory scheme and substituted schedule entries treated both products as the same commodity classification, and the exemption was confined to an industrial unit engaged in manufacturing. Commissioner-issued circulars and instructions were binding on the assessing authority, and the assessee's cited decisions were found factually distinguishable. The exemption claim therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under S.R.O. No. 1727/1993 and S.R.O. No. 1728/1993 for centrifuged latex on the footing that the activity amounted to manufacturing.

Analysis: The statutory scheme and the substituted schedule entries were treated as showing that raw rubber latex and centrifuged latex fell within the same commodity classification. The exemption notification was confined to an industrial unit engaged in manufacturing activity, and the circular/instructions issued by the Commissioner were binding on the assessing authority. On that basis, conversion of raw rubber latex into centrifuged latex was held not to involve the manufacturing activity required for the exemption. The decisions relied on by the assessee were found inapplicable on their facts.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the benefit of S.R.O. No. 1727/1993 or S.R.O. No. 1728/1993, and the issue was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

---