TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1969 (3) TMI 79
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing does not result in the emergence of a new commercial commodity and it cannot be said that it amounts to manufacture. There is a distinction between mere processing and manufacture, and the distinction was brought out by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 791. in the following words: "According to the learned counsel 'manufacture' is complete as soon as by the application of one or more processes, the raw material undergoes some change. To say this is to equate 'processing' to 'manufacture' and for this we can find no warrant in law. The word 'manufacture' used as a verb is generally understood to mean as 'bringing into existence a new substance', and does not mean merely 'to produce some change in a substance', however minor in consequence the change may be. This distinction is well brought about in a passage thus quoted in Permanent Edition of Words and Phrases, Volume 26, from an American judgment. The passage runs thus: '"Manufacture" implies a change, but every change is not manufacture and yet every change of an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation. But something more is necessary and there must ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gles at Firozabad. Amongst other varieties of bangles it deals in a variety called the ornamented glass bangles. It buys glass bangles in plain form from glass factories at Firozabad and sells them after subjecting them to a process of ornamentation. Prior to the assessment year 1965-66 glass bangles were a single point taxable commodity, the turnover whereof was taxable in the hands of the manufacturers or importers (We are not concerned in this case with importers). On 1st February, 1966, the State Government issued a notification under section 3-A of the Act being Notification No. 471/X-900(45)-65 which contained two separate entries, one relating to plain glass bangles and the other to ornamented glass bangles. The turnover of both the varieties of glass bangles was made taxable at 7 paise per rupee. The point of sale in the former variety was the sale by the manufacturer while in the case of the latter variety it was the sale by the ornamentor. Under this notification sales tax was levied upon the petitioner in respect of the assessment year 1965-66 for the period 1st February, 1966, to 31st March, 1966, and similarly for subsequent assessment year 1966-67 the tax was levied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that the turnover in respect of such goods shall be liable to tax at such rate not exceeding ten naye paise per rupee as may be specified........" Obviously the power of the State Government under section 3-A is restricted to certain goods or class of goods. The turnover of same goods or goods belonging to the same class cannot be subjected to tax under section 3-A more than once by introducing an artificial classification. If the plain bangles and ornamented glass bangles are not different goods or do not belong to different classes of goods, they cannot be made the subject of a charge separately. The short question which, therefore, arises is whether plain glass bangles and ornamented glass bangles are two different kinds of goods or belong to the same class of goods. It may be mentioned here that it was on the 8th of June, 1948, that glass bangles were included for the first time in section 3-A by means of Notification No. S.T. 117/X-923-1948. Entry No. 15 of the Schedule attached to that notification was "glass bangles". The point of tax was the sale by the manufacturer or the importer depending upon as to whether bangles were manufactured inside Uttar Pradesh or were impor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ornamentation may at best be called processing and there is a well-recognised distinction between the two. In Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General MillsA.I.R. 1963 S.C. 791., the Supreme Court brought out the distinction between "manufacture" and "processing" in the following words: "According to the learned counsel 'manufacture' is complete as soon as by the application of one or more processes, the raw material undergoes some change. To say this is to equate 'processing' to 'manufacture' and for this we can find no warrant in law. The word 'manufacture' used as a verb is generally understood to mean as 'bringing into existence a new substance' and does not mean merely 'to produce some change in a substance', however minor in consequence the change may be. This distinction is well brought about in a passage thus quoted in Permanent Edition of Words and Phrases, Volume 26, from an American judgment. The passage runs thus: '"Manufacture" implies a change, but every change is not manufacture and yet every change of an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation. But something more is necessary and there must be transformation; a new and different article must ....