Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1983 (9) TMI 172

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act. But it was rejected by the WTO on the ground that the assessee was not having any looms of its own and was doing manufacture outside on contract basis. In other words, the WTO rejected the claim of exemption for the reason that the assessee itself did not carry on the manufacturing or processing activity. 4. On appeal it was contended on behalf of the assessee that it was not necessary that the assessee should be the owner of looms to be eligible for exemption under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act and even if the manufacturing of processing was done from outside agencies the assessee was nonetheless eligible for exemption. After due consideration of several decisions of the Tribunal and the decision of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....them within the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of First WTO & Ors. vs. Smt. M. Annai Jayabarathi & Ors. in W.T.A. Nos. 340 & 341 (Mds) asst. yrs. 1977-78 dt. 30th July, 1980 since (1980) TTJ 296 (Mad). Further he referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CST vs. Dr. Sukh Deo (1969) 23 STC 385 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court observed that the 'manufacturer' is a person by whom or under whose direction or control the goods are manufactured and stated even the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CWT vs. K. Lakshmi cited supra, which has been relied upon by the ld. Departmental Representative would support the assessee's case inasmuch as the assessee has carried out at least some process....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the facts of the case. At the outset it would be necessary to consider the various activities involved in the manufacture of handloom sarees. According to the assessee following processes are involved in the manufacturing activity: (i) The assessee purchases art silk yarn supplied in cases of 50 Kg., 45 Kg., 90 Kg., etc ; (ii) The assessee gives the above yarn to outside agency for twisting and warping; (iii) Such warped yarn are again given to outside agency for dying giving specific instructions of colour; (iv) After receipt such coloured yarn is given to outside agency for making it stiff using vajram (an adhesive); (v) The assessee also purchases cotton yarn which is given to days giving specification of colour ; (vi)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee; (xii) Then the saree are wrapped in brown paper purchased by the assessee with assistance of his staff: over the covers markings are made by the assessee to show size colour and design; (xiii) Thereafter, the assessee with the assistance of his staff put and tie yarn bands with knots on each wrapped saree so that folding may stay intact and not become loose; (xiv) Thereafter the packed sarees are despatched by the assessee mostly to places outside the State packing them in bales of 40s. 50s., etc., sarees in each pack, by nailing them. Some of the items, say item No. (iv) to (xiv), were done by the employees of the assessee especially darning cutting unwanted edges, affixing trade mark seal, labelling, ironing, calende....