KOTHARI, J. - (1.) THESE four revision petitions filed by the Assessee-petitioner against the Tax Board's order dated 8. 10. 2004 are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE Assessee-petitioner claimed benefit of exemption from Tax under the notification No. 1082 dated 12. 3. 1997 which is reproduced herein below as under:      " S. No. 1082 : F. 4 (1)FD/tax Divn/97-109 dated 12. 3. 1997. S. O. 307.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 15, RST Act, 1994, and in supercession of this Department notification No. F. 4 (8) FDGr. IV/91-111 dated 6. 3. 1991 (S. No. 840), the State Govt. (1.) hereby exempts from tax, the sale of iron and steel on the following conditions, namely:- 1. That such iron and steel is used as raw material in the manufacture of iron and steel as specified in Sec. 14 (iv), CST Act, 1956. 2. That such manufactured product is sold within the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce; and 3. That such manufacturer shall issue a declaration to this effect in Form ST 17 appended to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995, to the selling dealer. " The assessee-petitioner purchased during the period in question angles, channels, flats, Bars and other items of iron and steel and manufactured by fabrication activity steel structures as per specifications given by the RSEB and sold the same to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short as "rseb") under the purchase orders placed by RSEB. The Assessing Authority held that the assessee was not entitled to benefit of exemption under said notification dated 12. 3. 1997 on the ground that the contention of assessee that no manufacturing activity was involved in making of steel structures was unsustainable and since the angles, channels, flats, Bars and other items were purchased by assessee and it converted these items into different commercial articles known as steel structures or transmission towers sold to RSEB. The goods sold by assessee-petitioner could not be said to be covered within the ambit and scope of Sec. 14 (iv) (v) of the Central Sales Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to be as "act of 1956"), which reads as under:      " 14 (iv) (v) : steel structurals (angles, joists, channels, tees, sheet piling sections, Z sections or any other rolled sections)" The Assessing Authority, therefore, imposed tax on the assessee-petitioner by resorting to re-assessment power under Sec. 30 of the Act @ 3# and surcharge thereon. He also imposed penalty for misuse of declaration in form No. ST 17. Learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the first appeal of the Assessee-petitioner and he set aside the tax imposed by the Assessing Authority by holding that the goods manufactured by Assessee petitioner fell within the definition of steel structurals under Sec. 14 (iv) (v) of the Act of 1956 and, therefore, imposition of additional tax was not justified. The assessee-petitioner had paid 4% RST on sale of steel structurals to RSEB also. The Revenue took the matter in second appeal before the Tax Board where the appeal of the revenue was allowed and the Tax Board, setting aside the order of D. C. (Appeals) held that the Assessing Authority was justified in imposing the tax and the goods manufactured by assessee-petitioner could not be held to be falling within the definition of Sec. 14 (iv) (v) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order of Tax Board, these revision petitions have been filed under Sec. 86 of the Act by the assessee-petitioner.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel and perused the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the assessee-petitioner contended that the assessee-petitioner fully satisfied with the conditions of said notification No. 1082 dated 12. 3. 1997 and its contention before the Assessing Authority that its activity of fabrication and converting of angles channels, flats, Bars and other items into steel structurals did not amount to `manufacturing' was with a view of contend that if it is not construed to be a manufacturing activity, the goods purchased and goods sold by them being the same, no additional tax could be imposed by the Assessing Authority because they had already paid 4% sales-tax on the sale of finished goods to RSEB and therefore in view of single point levy of tax only permitted under R. S. T. Act, no purchase tax could be imposed by the Assessing authority. Without prejudice to that, their contention that if it is held to be manufacturing activity, even then since the finished goods or manufactured goods fall within the definition of Sec. 14 (iv) (v) of the Act of 1956, being steel structurals, they were exempted from payment of any sales-tax or purchase tax in view of exemption notification dated 12. 3. 1997 quoted herein above. Both these contentions are in alternative and mutually exclusive. Per contra, Mr. Rafiq, Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for respondent-Revenue contends that if the contention of assessee- petitioner that fabrication activity undertaken by them does not amount to manufacture and does not bring into existence new commercial articles, that stand would not only be incorrect perse but would also support the case of the revenue as the condition No. 1 of the said notification dated 12. 3. 1997 would stand violated on the own admission of assessee-petitioner. Secondly he submits, relying on the judgment of this Court in CTO vs. M/s. Vishwakarma Engineering Words, Jodhpur (2005 (13) Tax Up-Date 11), that amount of processing done on the iron articles of bending them on corners and making holes therein has been held to be not amounting to manufacturing by this Court and, therefore, imposition of additional purchase tax by the assessing authority in the present case was justified and, therefore, the order of Tax Board deserves to be upheld. He also submits that finished goods fabricated, manufactured and sold by the assessee do not fall under Section 14 (iv) (v) of CST Act and therefore assessee is not entitled to exemption under notification dated 12. 3. 1997. ;