TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1589
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... By Adv. Smt. Harima Hariharan, GP. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a company engaged in running a Medium- Scale Industrial Unit, stated to be engaged in the manufacture and sale of "tyres, tubes, tread rubber", etc. The petitioner sought for the benefit of exemption from payment of tax as provided under the provisions of S.R.O. No. 1729/1993, representing the "additional investments" carried out in its unit, as well as "modernization". As regards the additional investment carried out in the unit, Ext.P2 is the eligibility certificate issued by the Director of Industries and Commerce (DIC) - 3rd respondent. As regards the modernization carried out, Ext.P5 is the eligibility certificate issued by the DIC. On the basis of Exts.P2 and P5 issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to be a product which is only subjected to a processing activity so as to deny the benefit of exemption. Therefore, according to him, the principles laid down by the Division Bench in MRF (supra) has to apply as regards the claim under S.R.O. No. 1729/ 1993 also. 3. Per contra, Smt. Harima Hariharan, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, would point out that the notification considered by the Division Bench in MRF (supra) and the notification on the basis of which exemption is claimed by the petitioner in the case at hand are, different. Hence, the principles laid down would not have any application to the facts of the case at hand, according to her. 4. I have considered the rival contentions, as well as the connect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he explanation, the question as to whether the product manufactured compound rubber-is to be extended the benefits of exemption requires to be considered. 7. At the first blush, from a reading of clause (h) introduced by S.R.O. No. 38/1998 in S.R.O. No. 1729/1993, the contention raised by the revenue appears to be attractive. 8. At the same time, this Court notices that the Division Bench in MRF (supra) had elaborately considered the question as to whether the compound rubber manufactured by the petitioner could be considered to be a "finished product" with specific reference to the exclusion pursuant to the explanation added under S.R.O. No. 1516/1990. The Division Bench, considered the certificates issued by various persons in the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vits is a process of manufacture and such activity need not by itself conclude in the production of tyres and tubes. The product that comes out of the process in the assessee's unit in Kerala is itself a rubber product which has to be treated as finished one for the purpose for which it is put to use, including by person who purchase it as such. The evidence by way of affidavits of experts tendered on behalf of the assessee corroborates each other and the evidentiary value of such evidence of experts clearly outweighs the views in annexure A5 certificate. When evidence of experts are tendred and when the expertise of the persons tendering such evidence is also established, such materials can be rebutted only through such contra evi....