2006 (11) TMI 200

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on No. 1165 of 1999 under Section 86(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. The said revision was directed against the judgment dated 9th February, 1999, passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent/assessee and setting aside the decision of the District Level Screening Committee taken on 19th March, 1998, rejecting the assessee's application for Eligibility Certificate under the Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1989. 2. The assessee, which is the respondent in the present appeal, manufacturers stainless steel sheets. Its original installed capacity was 1300 M.T. per annum prior to 16th February, 1995. Subsequently, the assessee expanded its production capacity to 1600 M.T. per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... capital investment by not less than 25% of the net fixed assets of the existing project and accompanied by an increase in the production to the extent of at least 25% of the original licensed/registered capacity. Explanation : The benefits of Sales Tax incentive for Expansion shall be admissible to the eligible units only after they have achieved at least 85% of their licensed/registered capacity before expansion." 4.  The assessee applied to the District level Screening Committee for grant of Eligibility Certificate under the provisions of the said 1989 Incentive Scheme on account of expansion of its installed capacity. The said Committee came to the conclusion that since the production by the assessee had been raised during th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd the High Court. Although, the Rajasthan Tax Board was of the view that the job work performed by the assessee would have to be added to the production capacity of the assessee's unit, there is no reasoning in support thereof. The said lacuna has been addressed by the High Court by holding that the expression used in the statute did not indicate that the manufacture of goods for sale must be by any particular individual and that the entire production in order to make the unit eligible for grant of benefit under the 1989 Incentive Scheme must be on its own account and not by way of doing job work. On such interpretation of clause 2(f) of the 1989 Incentive Scheme, the High Court affirmed the finding of the Rajasthan Tax Board and directed ....