SUPREME COURT OF INDIA while deciding the Civil appeal no.8036 of 2009 with C.A.Nos. 8037-8044 of 2009, on 2.12.09, in re: INCOME TAX OFFICER, UDIAPUR vs ARIHANT TILES & MARBLES (P) LTD observed as follows:-

QUOTE : In the present case, we have extrated in detail the process undertaken by each of the respondents before us. In the present case, we are not concerned only with cutting of marble blocks into slabs. In the present case we are also concerened with the activity of polishing and ultimate conversion of blocks into polished slabs and tiles. What we find from the process indicated hereinabove is that there are various stages through which the blocks have to go through before they become polished slabs and tiles. In the circumstances, we are of the view tat on the facts of the cases in hand, there is certainly an acitivitywhich will come in the category of MANUFACTURE or PORDUCTION under Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act. As stated hereinabove, the judgement of this Court in AMAN MARBLE INDUSTRIES (PVT). LTD was not required to construe the word PRODUCTION in addition to the word MANUFACTURE. One has to examine the scheme of the Act also while deciding the question as to whether the activity constitutes MANUFACTURE or PRODUCTION. Therefore, looking to the nature of the activity stepwise, we are of the view that the subject activity certainly constitutes MANUFACTURE or PRODUCTION in terms of Section 80 IA. In this connection, our view is also fortified by the following judgements of this Court which have been fairly pointed out to us bt learned counsel appearing for the Department. UNQUOTE

[for full text of the judgement please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2009_sc_ca_8036]

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS manufacture, production section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA while deciding on 29/07/09 the Civil appeal no. 5840 of 2004 in re: QAZI NOORUL H.H.H. PETROL PUMP vs DY. DIRECTOR, ESI CORPORATION held as follows:-

QUOTE: It may be stated that the words “manufacturing process” in different statutes have different meanings. For instance, in the Central Excise Act, 1944, the word “manufacture” means bringing into existence a different commodity, though this not the definition of “manufacturing process” in the Factories Act, 1948. We cannot apply the definition of “manufacturing process” in one statute to another statute. Section 2(k), sub-clause (i) of the Factories Act, 1948 states that pumping oil is a manufacturing process. Admittedly, the appellant does the work of pumping oil. When we to a Petrol pmp for getting petrol or diesel, the petrol or diesel is in a tank and it does not on its own flow from the tank to the pipe and thereafter into the vehicle, but only by means of a pump by using power.

In our opinion, the only rule of interpretation which applies to the facts of the present case is the Literal Rule of Interpretation, which means that we should go simply by the wording of the Statute and nothing else and there is no scope for applying any other Rule of Interpretation. In our opinion, the language used in Section 2(k)(ii) of the Factories Act, 1948 is clear. Hence, the Act applies to the appellant and the respondent was right in issuing notice to the appellant for making contribution and interest thereon for the period in question. UNQUOTE

[for full text of the judgement, please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2009_sc_ca_5840]

SUPREME COURT ORDER

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS Literal Rule of Interpretation, manufacture, manufacturing process