- (1.) The Commissioner of Trade Tax has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 11-3-1997 passed in Second Appeal No. 418 of 1992 for the assessment year 1986-87 whereby the Trade Tax Tribunal, Aligarh has dismissed the appeal filed by it. The following question of law has been framed in the memo of appeal: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Tribunal is justified to treat Iron Bar (Sariya) and wires drawn as the same commodity when: (i) Iron bar comes under IVth category of Iron and Steel as defined in Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 and manufactured commodity comes under XVth category of Iron and Steel. (ii)According to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamilnadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra, 1976 STI 42 each and every item described under the main category of Iron and Steel is separate and independent commercial commodity, hence exigiable to tax.
(2.) In pith and substance, the question involved in the present revision is whether with reference to activity carried on by a dealer on iron bar it can be termed as 'manufacture' within the meaning of Section 2 (e-1)of U.P. Trade Tax Act.
(3.) The dispute relates to the year 1986-87. The dealer-opposite party after purchasing the Iron Sariya undertakes the process of cleaning it in acid whereby the carbon and dust particles are removed. After cleaning, the diameter of sariya is reduced to the desired measurement with the help of dyeing machine and thereafter it is put in cutter machine to cut in different sizes as required by its customers. The said process has been held as manufacturing process' by the Assessing Authority vide assessment order dated 18-3-1991 and it levied trade tax on such manufactured Sariya treating it as a hardware at the rate of 8.8% on the turn over of Rs. 1034,000/-. The accounts books were rejected. It was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) in Appeal No. 151 of 1991 on the ground that the reduction in diameter of Sariya after cleaning it in acid for removing carbon and dust does not amount to 'manufacturing process'. The Tribunal by its order in Second Appeal, which is under challenge in this revision, has confirmed the order of the first appellate court.;