S.B. Cold Storage Industries P. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Dipak Kumar Sen, J.—S.B. Cold Storage Industries Pvt. Ltd., the applicant, seeks a certificate from us that substantial questions of law of public importance arise from the judgment of this court dated August 26, 1986 (see S.B. Cold Storage Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, ), delivered in the above Income Tax reference and that this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. Such questions of law are stated to be as follows :

"1. What should be the true scope and ambit of the expression ''production of any one or more of the articles'', appearing in Section 32A(2)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?

Whether the processing which is involved in the preservation of potatoes in the cold storage plant amounts to production of an article for the purposes of Section 32A(2)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and as such the assesses is entitled to the investment allowance in terms of the said section ?

Where admittedly, as in the present case, the goods or articles are subjected to processing when they are kept in cold storage for preservation, whether ''production of any article or thing'' appearing in Section 32A(2)(b)(u) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requires bringing into existence a new commercial product or a commercial product different from potatoes ?"

It appears from the judgment that this court followed the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Chrestien Mica Industries Ltd. v. State of Bihar [1961] 12 STC 150 and Empire Industries Limited and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, , where the Supreme Court considered and construed the meaning of the expressions "production" and "products". It has been held in the judgment that mere preservation of an existing article by subjecting it to a process of cold storage does not amount to any production. The judgment is based mainly on the facts of the instant case and, in our view, the law appears to be settled. Learned advocate for the applicant drew our attention to subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court in excise matters where the Supreme Court has further considered the concepts of "processing" and "production". The said judgments, in our view, are not applicable to the facts of this case.

For the reasons as aforesaid, this application fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

Shyamal Kumar Sen, J.

I agree.