2006 (8) TMI 554

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... various centres in Kerala and also from other States. The raw hides and skins purchased are transported outside Kerala to Dindigul in Tamil Nadu where the raw hides and skins are processed in the tannery and exported against purchase orders. According to the petitioner, the items are mostly exported and, therefore, the entire purchases are entitled to exemption under section 5(3) of the CST Act. The question raised and considered before the Tribunal is whether there is manufacturing or processing of raw hides and skins to produce tanned and dressed hides, to disentitle the petitioner to claim exemption under section 5(3) of the CST Act. The Tribunal, following the unreported decision of this court in T.M. Shajahan v. State of Kerala in S.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessing officer for the assessment year 1989-90, the petitioner has not established it's claim for exemption as required under section 5(3) of the CST Act. So far as the other assessment years are concerned, we find the officer has completely diverted his attention to the question as to whether there is manufacture of new product or not, and having found against the petitioner, the assessing officer has not gone into the details of purchases, alleged prior orders for export against which purchases were claimed to have been made, requirement of form H, etc., in respect of each and every purchase in terms of section 5(3) of the CST Act. However, we are required to consider only the issue decided by the Tribunal on merits, no matter, whether....