2001 (7) TMI 311

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llowance under s. 32A is admissible on machinery or plant used for manufacture or production of any article or thing, not specified in Eleventh Schedule. The AO was also of the view that the activity of retreading tyres does not amount to production or manufacture of any article or thing. He accordingly held that the assessee was not entitled to investment allowance under s. 32A of the Act. In support of his view, the AO relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Bombay Bench in Tyreage (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1982) 14 TTJ (Bom) 438 where it was held that tyre retreading does not amount to manufacturing. 3. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) held that the assessee-firm was engaged in manufacture of articles, viz., retreading tyres and, accordingly, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t tyres and gave it a new lease of life and the process, though not equivalent to the manufacture of a new tyre, stopped very little short of it. It was further held that the nature of the activity of the assessee, which was processing, was akin to an industrial or manufacturing activity. The learned counsel further relied upon the decision of this Bench in the case of M.B. Chemicals vs. Dy. CIT (2001) 70 TTJ (Pune)(TM) 278 : (2001) 76 ITD 1 (Pune)(TM) where it was held, "simply because the finished product has the same chemical composition as the raw material from which it is made, it does not follow that the process involved does not amount to manufacture." In the light of above decisions, the learned counsel concluded that the CIT(A) was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Tribunal was not right in holding that the business of tyre retreading amounted to the production of a new article entitling the assessee to the relief under ss. 80J and 80HH of the IT Act. In our view, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court squarely applies to the facts of the case before us and accordingly, we hold that the AO was justified in rejecting the assessee's claim under s. 32A of the Act. 7. Now, coming to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel, the decisions in the case of General's New Tread and of this Bench in the case of M.B. Chemicals are by the Tribunal and it is settled law that the judgment of a High Court prevails over a judgment of the Tribunal. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Madr....