COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. DIMAC INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has framed three questions of law. However, for deciding this appeal the relevant question of law is (b) and the same is reproduced as under : "(b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee's activity can be considered as manufacturing activity since the assessee is only crushing the manganese ore to the manganese powder -

(2.) THE CIT(A) in the appeal preferred by the respondent herein was pleased to hold that the act of the respondent amounts to manufacture by recording a finding of the various acts involved and the use in various industrial or finished products pursuant to the requirement of manganese in different concentrates or percentages. The acts of assorting at input level, blending, crushing, removal of silica and separation of Fe+FeO and chemical testing in lab for ensuring required quality, that it was held all are an integral process of manufacture. In other words, what the CIT(A) held was that the product after it underwent the processes would be a different and commercially distinct product.

(3.) THE Tribunal relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. (2004) 188 CTR (Bom) 120 : (2004) 266 ITR 126 (Bom) as affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. (2004) 192 CTR (SC) 577 : (2004) 271 ITR 331 (SC) and confirmed the finding of the CIT(A).