1984 (4) TMI 273

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....waste of manufacture contained in section 2(j) of the said Act." This question, as framed, is not proper. Therefore, we have reframed the question as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that cleaning and washing with certain chemicals and cutting into pieces of waste fibre amounts to manufacture as defined in section 2(j) of the said Act." 2.. Facts giving rise to this reference as mentioned in the statement of fact are as follows: The applicant, M/s. Universal Chemicals & Industries Pvt. Ltd., Nagda, purchases waste fibre and after cleaning it of the dirt, foreign material, etc., sells it to textile mills as staple fibre base. It was claimed by the dealer that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... He, therefore, submitted that the product is the same, but by merely cleaning it, it does not amount to manufacturing a new product as such, as the definition of "manufacture" though wide does not include mere cleaning as such and in support of his submission he placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision reported in [1968] 21 STC 17 (SC) (Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Harbilas Rai and Sons) wherein it has been held that: "The word 'manufacture' has various shades of meaning, and in the context of sales tax legislation, if the goods to which some labour is applied remain essentially the same commercial article, it cannot be said that the final product is the result of manufacture." In that case the assessees, dealers....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fibre is cleaned and then sold as staple fibre base, it continues to possess its original identity and the cleaned material cannot be considered as a new product brought into existence by a manufacturing process as such. He, therefore, submitted that even though as a result of the cleaning the value of the staple fibre base may increase, that by itself would not amount to manufacture because value has nothing to do as such so far as manufacture is concerned. 7.. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent, Shri Surjeet Singh, invited our attention to the decisions reported in 1980 VKN 1 (MP) (Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Purshottamdas Somabhai, Guna), 1980 VKN 312 (MP) (Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Prade....