Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 the manufacture of rosin and turpentine oil could be treated as manufacture with the aid of power merely because water was pumped to an overhead tank by electric motor, and whether the assessee was entitled to the exemption claimed.
Analysis: The process of manufacture showed that the raw material was heated and the products were separated without direct use of power in the manufacturing operations themselves. The only power-assisted activity was pumping water to an overhead tank for cooling in the condenser. The departmental TRU clarification on the same product and notification stated that such limited use of power for drawing water into the cooling arrangement would not make manufacture one carried on with the aid of power. That clarification was treated as binding on the Department and was applied in favour of the assessee.
Conclusion: The use of power for pumping water did not amount to manufacture with the aid of power. The assessee was entitled to the exemption, and the contrary classification and denial of nil rate of duty were set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Limited use of power for an ancillary cooling operation does not constitute manufacture with the aid of power where the manufacturing process itself is otherwise carried on without such aid, and a beneficial departmental circular on the same issue binds the Revenue.