2010 (12) TMI 1330

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dly, Chewing Tobacco was exempted from tax before 1.4.2007.  However, when that was removed from the declared goods on 1.4.2007, it was taxable till the date of notification, viz., 12.10.2009, and it was due to that reason the petitioner has paid tax in respect of the Chewing Tobacco.  Now, by virtue of the said government order, by which exemption has been granted from payment of tax at the rate of 12.5%, the petitioner claims exemption of tax for the said commodity. 3. However, treating that the said commodity is liable to tax at the rate of 12.5% and denying the exemption, the Assessing Authority has passed the detention order dated 1.12.2010, which is challenged in this proceedings. 4.1.  The petitioner relies upon ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....grance and taste would result in a product distinct from the predominant ingredient to enable that to be treated as a new and different commercial commodity for the purpose of taxation?"  The decisions by all the court are also on similar lines concluding that the ingredient in minute quantities added in a process for improving the qualities of a predominant ingredient, does not amount to a process of manufacture resulting in a new and district product with different qualities when compared to the predominant ingredient of the process and therefore the resultant product is not one different or distinguishable from the predominant ingredient as the predominant ingredient remains to be with the same basic qualities with improvement in sm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the petitioner before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. On a reference to the order of the Joint Commissioner, it is no doubt true that the Joint Commissioner has misquoted the judgment of the Supreme Court in  Crane Betel Nut Powder Works v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, 6 VST 532, which appears to be a simple case of adding sweetening agent to the betel nut powder.  Under such circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that such goods are eligible for exemption as per the government order.  However, the Joint Commissioner has proceeded to analyse some other goods also, about which the validity is yet to be decided.   7. When it is the stand of the respondents that th....