TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (9) TMI 350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Rs. 32,231. But in the first appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was reduced to the abovesaid figure and the said reduced figure was also deleted by the Tribunal as it stood in the assessment. The said turnover relates to purchase of lime shell made by the assessees/respondents (not supported by bills) which was subsequently converted into poultry shell grit, after incurring an expenditure of Rs. 2,780 as charges for grinding the same. As per section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, as it stood in the abovesaid assessment year purchase tax is levied if a dealer purchases from a registered dealer or any other person any goods (the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under this Act) in circumstances in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was no manufacture in the conversion of the abovesaid lime shell into shell grit and that they were not two different goods. She relied on State of Tamil Nadu represented by Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) v. Bharat Dairy Farm, Vanjipalayam [1991] 81 STC 332 (Mad.); (1992) 1 MTCR 590. The question there was whether cream converted into butter by the process of stirring, brought into existence any different commercial commodity than the original one and whether manufacturing process was involved in the abovesaid conversion. In that context it was held relying on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka [1986] 63 STC 239 that there was no consumption of cream in the process of converting it into butter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l grit was poultry feed. So, according to her, shell grit is a different commodity from ordinary lime shell and though, according to the Tribunal the abovesaid conversion process involved only grinding of the lime shell into powder, the converted product, namely shell grit, should be taken to have been "manufactured" from out of lime shell. She also pointed out that as much as Rs. 2,780 has been incurred as expenses for such conversion. 8.. She also relied on the decision in the judgment dated August 7, 1991 of a Division Bench of this Court in Tax Case Appeal No. 735 of 1982.-Decan Limeshell & Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer which has been also reported in [1992] 87 STC 29; (1992) 2 MTCR 258. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in commercial parlance, treated differently from the original pineapple fruit. But the learned Additional Government Pleader submits that that is not so in the present case since the abovesaid shell grit is treated in commercial parlance as a different commodity from the lime shell and so the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion it reached. 10.. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessees/respondents argues that the process involved was only grinding lime shell into powder and that process, by itself, could not be termed "manufacture". He also seeks to distinguish the above referred to decision reported in [1992] 87 STC 29 (Mad.); (1992) 2 MTCR 258 (Decan Limeshell & Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu) by pointing out that th....