RATNA METAL WORKS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee is the appellant. THE assessee purchases m. S. scraps and out of the scraps the assessee manufactures washers and sold the remnants. THE scrap sold by the assessee was not in the same form in which it was purchased. THE remnants sold by the assess was altogether a new marketable commodity, as the scraps purchased by the assessee has lost its identity after the process of manufacturing washers. Hence, according to the assessing officer what was purchased and sold by the assessee after the process of manufacturing was not the same commodity eligible for exemption. However, on appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner considered that what was purchased by the assessee as scrap was sold as such by the assessee and, therefore, what was sold by the assessee is not a new product. THErefore, the Appellate assistant Commissioner held that the sale value of the scrap is exempted. However, the Joint Commissioner came to the conclusion that exemption granted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the sale turnover of remnants is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and hence, by exercising his jurisdiction under section 34 the interest of Revenue and hence, by exercising his jurisdiction under section34 of the Act, the Joint Commissioner, brought to tax the sale turnover of remnants. It is against that order the present appeal has been preferred by the assessee.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the assessee submitted that what was purchased by the assessee is only a scrap. In the scrap, the assessee is making holes for the purpose of manufacturing washers and used to sell the remnants, in the market. When the scrap was originally purchased by the assessee, it was subjected to tax and, therefore, scrap sold by the assessee cannot be taxed once again. LEARNED counsel further submitted that in the scrap, after the purchase by the assess, holes were made and after that the remnants would not become a different end-product so as to attract the tax once again. It was pleaded that the Joint Commissioner was not correct in taxing the sale turnover of remnants. We have also heard the learned additional Government Pleader (Taxes) who supported the order passed by the joint Commissioner.