TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 951
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... (C) No. 2384 of 2009, W.P. (C) No. 24 of 2011, W.P. (C) No. 3725 of 2012, W.P. (C) No. 3759 of 2012, W.P. (C) No. 4919 of 2011, W.P. (C) No. 2558 of 2011, W.P. (C) No. 1491 of 2011, W.P. (C) No. 5374 of 2011, W.P. (C) No. 1493 of 2011, W.P. (C) No. 1494 of 2011, W.P. (C) No. 3854 of 2008, W.P. (C) No. 5571 of 2011 and W.P. (C) No. 4941 of 2009, W.P. (C) No. 1759 of 2009, W.P. (C) No. 1761 of 2009, W.P. (C) No. 2143 of 2009 and W.P. (C) No. 1070 of 2009 as the issue involved in all the petitions are identical. In W.P. (C) No. 1557 of 2010, the case of the petitioner is that it applied for eligibility certificate before the District Industry and Commerce Centre, Karimganj as per Industrial Policy of Assam, 1997 and under the provision of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration of the impugned order was stayed. However, no reply has been filed. Reply has been filed in W.P. (C) No. 1070 of 2009 stating that the concession scheme was applicable on purchase of raw materials within the State and also on sale of finished products manufactured in eligible units subject to the condition that the unit in question was engaged in "manufacturing". The honourable Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Mahalaxmi Stores [2003] 129 STC 79 (SC); [2003] 1 SCC 70 observed that crushing of boulders into smaller size stones did not amount to "manufacturing" as no new commercial commodity comes into existence. In view of law laid down in the said judgment, the petitioner was not eligible for the eligibility certificate and to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he meaning of the term 'manufacture'. But it may be pointed out that every type of variation of the goods or finishing of goods would not amount to manufacture unless it results in emergence of a new commercial commodity. In the instant case, the very nature of the activity does not result in manufacture because no new commercial commodity comes into existence." Since the question arising in the present case is identical, the view taken by the honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has to be treated as binding in this case. However, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon several judgments to submit that when there is a change in user by applying a process, it can be held that "manufacturing" is involved. In Ko....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is 'manufacture' is whether the change or the series of changes brought about by the application of processes take the commodity to the point where, commercially, it can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but is, instead, recognised as a distinct and new article that has emerged as a result of the processes. The principles are clear. But difficulties arise in their application in individual cases. There might be borderline cases where either conclusion with equal justification may be reached. Insistence on any sharp or intrinsic distinction between 'processing' and 'manufacture', we are afraid, results in an oversimplification of both and tends to blur their interdependence in cases such as the present ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el for the petitioners submit that in view of the judgments of the honourable Supreme Court in Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. v. State of A.P. [2005] 142 STC 76 (SC); [2005] 6 SCC 292 and Pondicherry State Cooperative Consumer Federation Limited v. Union Territory of Pondicherry [2007] 10 VST 630 (SC); [2008] 1 SCC 206 and of this court in W.P. (C) No. 1683 of 2010 (fai Chemical Industries v. State of Assam [2013] 63 VST 202 (Gauhati) ) decided on August 30, 2012 and in W.P. (C) No. 2603 of 2011 (Sunil Kumar Taparia v. State of Assam [2013] 57 VST 552 (Gauhati)) decided on August 23, 2012 it was not permissible to cancel the eligibility certificate already granted in absence of any fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioners when the issue was de....