Court Rules Seed Processing is Manufacturing, Eligible for Tax Deduction

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name:

New Nandi Seeds Corporation vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XVIII (High Court of Gujarat)

Tax Appeal No.538 of 2014 & 1512 of 2006

Date: 12 December 2014

Key Takeaways

1. Seed processing is considered a manufacturing activity for tax purposes.

2. Companies engaged in seed processing may be eligible for tax deductions under sections 80I and 80IA of the Income Tax Act.

3. The court emphasized the importance of considering the end product's use and transformation from the original raw material.

Issue

Does the process of seed processing constitute a manufacturing activity, making the company eligible for tax deductions under sections 80I and 80IA of the Income Tax Act?

Facts

1. New Nandi Seeds Corporation is engaged in the production, processing, and marketing of various hybrid seeds.

2. The company follows a process certified by the Gujarat State Seed Certification Agency.

3. The process involves selecting contract growers, distributing foundation seeds, providing technical guidance, harvesting, and processing the seeds.

4. The processed seeds are treated with chemicals and are not fit for human consumption.

5. The company employs more than 10 workers in its processing unit.

Arguments

Assessee (New Nandi Seeds Corporation):

- The seed processing activity is a manufacturing process as it transforms the raw seeds into a new product unfit for human consumption.

- The process is similar to that of Navbharat Seeds Pvt. Ltd., which was previously recognized as a manufacturing activity.

- The company employs more than 10 workers, fulfilling the condition for tax deductions.

Revenue Department:

- The seed processing is not a manufacturing activity but merely a processing of agricultural produce.

- The change in the seeds does not result in a new and different article.

Key Legal Precedents

1. Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax [2001] 251 ITR 323:

Defined "manufacture" as producing articles for use from raw materials by giving them new forms, qualities, or combinations.

2. State of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Agriculture Input Dealers' Association (1996) 5 SCC 479:

Recognized that processed seeds become a commodity distinct from food grains.

3. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Pilibhit Pantnagar Beej Ltd. (2004) 1 SCC 391:

Held that seeds converted into certified seeds unfit for human consumption are a different commodity.

Judgment

The court ruled in favor of New Nandi Seeds Corporation, concluding that:

1. The seed processing activity constitutes a manufacturing process.

2. The processed seeds are not fit for human consumption, indicating a change in their original form.

3. The company's process is similar to that of Navbharat Seeds Pvt. Ltd., which was previously recognized as a manufacturing activity.

4. The company employs more than 10 workers, fulfilling the condition for tax deductions.

5. The company is entitled to tax deductions under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act.

FAQs

Q1: What makes seed processing a manufacturing activity?

A1: The court considered that the process transforms raw seeds into a new product unfit for human consumption, changing its original form and use.

Q2: Does this ruling apply to all seed processing companies?

A2: While this ruling sets a precedent, each case may be evaluated based on its specific circumstances and processes.

Q3: What are the implications of this judgment for the seed industry?

A3: Seed processing companies may now have a stronger case for claiming tax deductions under sections 80I and 80IA of the Income Tax Act.

Q4: How important was the certification by the Gujarat State Seed Certification Agency?

A4: The certification played a crucial role in establishing the legitimacy and standardization of the seed processing activities.

Q5: Could this judgment impact other agricultural processing industries?

A5: Potentially, as it sets a precedent for considering the transformation of agricultural products into non-edible forms as manufacturing activities.

1. By way of these appeals, the appellant of Tax Appeal No. 538/2004, has challenged the judgment and order dated 29.10.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench “A” in ITA No. 1110/Ahd/2004 for AY 2000-01.

1.1 In Tax Appeal No. 1512/2006, the Revenue has challenged the judgment and order dated 25.4.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad in ITA No. 867/Ahd/2005 for AY 2001-02.

1.2 In Tax Appeal No. 2399/2010, Tax Appeal No. 2400/2010 & Tax Appeal No. 2401/2010, the Revenue has challenged the judgment and order dated 14.6.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad in ITA No. 1479 & 1480, 1481/Ahd/2007 for AY 1999-00, 2002-03 & 2003-04.

1.3 In Tax Appeal No. 215/2007, 217/2007 & 218/2007, the Revenue has challenged the judgment and order dated 16.2.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad in ITA No. 1894, 1983 and 615/Ahd/2000 for AY 1997-98, 1994-95 and 1996-97.

1.4 In Tax Appeal No. 1706/2007, the Revenue has challenged the judgment and order dated 30.12.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad in ITA No. 1601/Ahd/2001 for AY 1998-99.

1.5 In Tax Appeal No. 1100/2007, the Revenue has challenged the judgment and order dated 19.1.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad in ITA No. 2317/Ahd/2006 for AY 2003-04.

1.6 In Tax Appeal No. 935/2009, the Revenue has challenged the judgment and order dated 6.10.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad in ITA No. 1668/Ahd/2008 for AY 2003-04.

1.7 In Tax Appeals Nos. 936/2009 and Tax AppealNo. 937/2009, the Revenue has challenged the judgment and order dated 25.4.2008 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad in ITA No. 1448 & 1449/Ahd/2004 for AY 1991-92 and 2000-01.

1.8 In Tax Appeal No. 880/2009, the Revenue has challenged the judgment and order dated 12.9.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad in ITA No. 2593/Ahd/2008 for AY 2005-06.

2.1 While admitting Tax Appeal No. 538/2004 on 27.12.2004, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law:

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant assessee is entitled in law to the deduction u/s. 80I and 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2000-01 in question ?”

2.2 While admitting Tax Appeal No. 1512/2006 on 25.7.2007, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law:

“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and facts in holding that the activity of testing, gradation, drying, fumigation and coating of seeds would be an activity of manufacturing and production of seeds and thereby, entitled to deduction us/ 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?

2.3 While admitting Tax Appeal No. 2399/2010 on 23.11.2011, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law:

(I) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deductions u/s. 80I of the Act of Rs. 71,70,683/- and u/s. 80IA of the Act of Rs. 10,48,158/- ?”

(II)Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,94,656/- being the processing expenses relating to certified seeds ?”

2.4 While admitting Tax Appeal No. 2400/2010 on 23.11.2011, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law:

(I) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deductions u/s. 80IA of the Act of Rs. 14,43,077/- ?”

(II)Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 18,17,666/- being the processing expenses relating to certified seeds ?”

2.5 While admitting Tax Appeal No. 2401/2010 on 23.11.2011, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law:

(I) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deductions u/s. 80IB of the Act of Rs. 117,75,770/- ?”

(II)Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,90,861/- being the processing expenses relating to certified seeds ?”

2.6 While admitting Tax Appeal No. 215/2007 on 20.9.2007, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law:

(A) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the activity of the respondent was a manufacturing activity with regard to trading of seeds ?

(B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the processing charges on seeds incurred as handling and pesticide charges ?”

2.7 While admitting Tax Appeal No. 217/2007 on 20.9.2007, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law:

(A) “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the reopening of assessment was bad in law ?

(B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the activity of the respondent was a manufacturing activity with regard to trading of seeds ?”

2.8 While admitting Tax Appeal No. 218/2007 on 20.9.2007, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law:

“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the activity of the respondent was a manufacturing activity with regard to trading of seeds ?”

2.9 While admitting Tax Appeal No. 1706/2007 on 3.3.2008, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law:

(A) “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the activity of the respondent was a manufacturing activity with regard to trading of seeds ?”

(B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the processing charges on seeds incurred as handling and pesticide charges ?”

2.10 While admitting Tax Appeal No. 1100/2007 on 14.12.2007, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) allowing deduction u/s. 80IB amounting to Rs. 18,04,912/-?”

2.11 While admitting Tax Appeals No. 935/2009, 936/2007 & 937/2009 on 10.12.2004, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,60,251/- made on account of processing charges for certified seeds ?”

2.12 While admitting Tax Appeal No. 880/2009 on 7.9.2010, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law:

“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the deletion of addition of Rs. 17,61,888/- made on account of processing charges of certified seeds ?”

3. At the out set, it is to be noted that in Tax Appeal No. 538/2004, the assessee has challenged the order dated 29.10.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench “A” in ITA No. 1110/Ahd/2004 for AY 2000-01, whereby, the Tribunal has held against the assessee and in favour of Revenue holding that process of seeds is not a manufacturing process, whereas, in other Tax Appeals, the Tribunal after relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Navbharat Seeds Pvt. Ltd. which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has taken the view that the processing of seeds is a manufacturing process.

Question: Whether processing of seeds is manufacturing activity ?

4. Learned counsel Mr. Soparkar appearing for the assessee while making his submissions has taken us through the process which is certified by the Director, Gujarat State Seed Certification Agency, Ahmedabad, which is produced in the additional paper-book, reads as under:

“The field level activities mentioned in the enclosed note, are carried out by the growers under the supervision an guidance of staff of the producer i.e. M/s. New Nandi Seeds Corporation, Ahmedabad from sowing of foundation seed till harvest. The officers of Seed Corporation Agency, inspect the seed plot frequently and take the count to ascertain the purity of standing crop.

All activities in respect of processing, packing and storage at Processing Plant of the producer i.e. M/s. New Nandi Seeds Corporation, where the growers are not in picture at all.”

4.1 Mr. Soparkar has taken us through the number of notes which was submitted for production and storage of the Bajra seeds and also the table whereby Navbharat Seeds Pvt. Ltd. and process done by the Nandi Seeds Corporation has been narrated with the certificate issued by the Gujarat State Seed Certification Agency, Ahmedabad and pointed out that the issue which was identical covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Navbharat Seeds Pvt. Ltd., which was carried in appeal by the Department by way of Tax Appeal No. 58/1993, where the Tribunal’s view was confirmed by this Court on 13.7.1993. The same was also carried before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was also confirmed.

4.2 Mr. Soparkar learned counsel thereafter has taken us through the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajsthan and others v. Rajsthan Agriculture Input Dealers’ Association and others, reported in (1996)5 SCC 479, where, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para- 4 & 7 as under:

“4. Strong reliance was placed by Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants on Kishal Lal v. State of Rajsthan and Ors,- 1990 Suppl.) SCC 742 to contend that for the purposes of Section 2(1)(i) and the Schedule of the Act, the expression “agricultural produce” is an inclusive definition which could even include processed items from foodgrains. Thus processed foodgrains on becoming seeds, as alleged by the respondents would all the same remain foodgrains requiring the respondents to take licence under the Act. Secondly, it was urged that by virtue of Notification dated 16th May, 1980, certified seeds and foundation seeds of a description alone were excluded from the purview of the Schedule and no other seed.

7. It is undoubtedly true that foodgrains per se could be used as seeds for being sown and achieving germination,but in that form they retain the dual utility of being foodgrains as well as seeds. By process of coating and applying insecticides, other chemicals and poisonous substances to the foodgrain meant to be utlised as seeds, one of its basic character, i.e. Its consumption as food by human beings or animals or for extraction for the like purpose, gets irretrievably lost and such processed seeds become a commodity distinct from foodgrains as commonly understood. That distinction was borne in mind by the High Court in allowing the writ petition of the respondents, and in our view rightly.”

4.3 Mr. Soparkar learned counsel has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and others v. Pilibhit Pantnagar Beej Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2004)1 SCC 391, and contended that any seeds produced, which is not fit for human consumption, is a manufacture process. He has also relied on para-34, 35 and 40 of the above decision, which reads as under:

“34. It was submitted by the first respondent that all the abovementioned stages of certification are as per the provisions of the Rules and that right from the inception to the time when the seed is sold in the market, it is done under regulation issued to govern each and every stage of seed production and certificates are only issued after the seed is found to achieve the minimum standards of genetic identity and genetic purity. It was also pointed out that no such certification standards exist for foodgrains sold by farmers to the Mandi Samiti. Thus, the production of seeds is an integrated process and needs to be regulated at every stage, right from the inception, in order to maintain genetic identity and genetic purity.

35. There is no nexus between whether the seed has been chemically treated or not and the levy of market fees. Since the seed is a separate commodity from grain, the same is not covered under Schedule I of the Adhiniyam and as such no market fee is leviable over the sale and/or purchase of the same.

40. Wheat seed converted into certified seed is unfit for human consumption and, therefore, market fee levy is impermissible.”

4.4 Mr. Soparkar learned counsel has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, reported in [2001] 251 ITR 323, more particularly, at page 326, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has described nine processes, which reads as under:

“It was noticed that the Tribunal had inspected the factory premises to have a first-hand knowledge of the operations carried on by the assessee- company. The inspection was made by the Tribunal in the presence of both the parties through their representatives. The factual observation of the Tribunal as a result of the inspection found that the following nine processes are involved in curing of coffee:

(1) Receipt of coffee from the estates;

(2) Storage of coffee in covered godowns;

(3) Drying of coffee to the required standards prescribed by the coffee board in drying yards;

(4) Hulling/pealing/polishing;

(5) Grading of coffee mechanically;

(6) Colour sorting;

(7) Garbling and manual grading;

(8) Out-turning of garbled coffee; and

(9) Bulking.

The Tribunal also found that to deal with the nine processes, the assessee has the factory area where godowns for storage of uncured/clean coffee, coffee drying yards, machine rooms, garbling sheds, etc., are located.”

4.5 Further while concluding at page 327, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

“The word “manufacture” has not been defined in the Act. In the absence of a definition of the word “manufacture” it has to be given a meaning as is understood in common parlance. It is to be understood as meaning the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving such materials new forms, qualities or combinations whether by hand labour or machines. If the change made in the article results in a new and different article then it would amount to a manufacturing activity.”

“Adverting to the facts of the present case, the assessee after plucking or receiving the raw coffee berries makes it undergo nine processes to give it the shape of coffee beans. The net product is absolutely different and separate from the input. The change made in the article results in a new and different article which is recognised in the trade as a new and distinct commodity. The coffee beans have an independent identity distinct from the raw material from which it was manufactured. A distinct change comes about in the finished product. The submission of learned counsel for the Revenue that the assessee was doing only the processing work and was not involved in the manufacture and producing of a new article cannot be accepted. The process is a manufacturing process when it brings out a complete transformation in the original article so as to produce a commercially different article or commodity. That process itself may consist of several processes. The different processes are integrally connected which results in the production of a commercially different article. If a commercially different article or commodity results after processing then it would be a manufacturing activity. The assessee after processing the raw berries converts them into coffeee beans which is a commercially different commodity. Conversion of the raw berry into coffee beans would be a manufacturing activity.”

4.6 In that view of the matter, Mr. Soparkar learned counsel has contended that it is manufacturing process. Mr. Soparkar learned counsel has also sought reliance on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court; namely in the case of Income Tax Officer v. Arihant Tiles & Marbles P. Ltd., reported in 320 ITR 79, and in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Oracle Software India Ltd., reported in 320 ITR 546 and in the case of India Cine Agencies v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, reported in 308 ITR 98. He has also drawn our attention to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Tarai Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lucknow, reported in 120 ITR p. 342, where a similar question arose for consideration and process held to be the manufacturing process.

4.7 He has also relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd., reported in 218 ITR 713 and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Jalna Seeds Processing and Refrigeration Co. Ltd., reported in 246 ITR 156 and contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that it is not a manufacturing process.

4.8 Mr. Soparkar learned counsel has also drawn our attention to para-5 of the judgment and order of Tribunal, which reads as under:

“5. After considering the rival submissions and going through the material on record, we find that the assessee is engaged in processing and distribution of agricultural seeds. The assessee purchases and supplies foundation seeds to growers and the same are cultivated by agriculturists in their fields and they are offered to assessee to purchase. Assessee purchases the seeds subject to his germination test. In case seeds are not upto the mark the same are returned back to the growers at their risk. Even transport charges are born by the growers. It shows that assessee has no risk dealing with the growers. Assessee purchases the seeds after his so called random test of germination. Fumigation is applied on seeds if these are to be stored for longer period. Prior to it seeds testing, seeds gradation, seeds drying is done which does not involve any manufacturing or production activity. As wee have mentioned earlier that fumigation is done only on the seeds which are to be stored but even after fumigation it does not change the nature of seeds at all, it simply make them resistant to certain pest at storage level. As far as application of pesticide is concerned, it is done so that seeds may not be damaged at germination level. But seeds remain the same. There is neither genetic or any other irreversible chemical change takes place in the seeds purchased by assessee. The various case laws relied on by assessee do not help the assessee because issue in those case was that good grains were changed into seeds as held by the Hon. Supreme Court in the judgment dated 28.11.2003 in Case No. Appeal (Civil) 6301 of 2001 in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti & Ors. v. Pilibhit Pantnagar Beej Ltd. & Anr.(s) as under:- “It is undoubtedly true that food grains per se could be used as seeds for being sown and achieving germination, but in that form they retain the dual utility of being food grains as well as seeds. By process of coating and applying insecticides, other chemicals and poisonous substances to the good-grain meant to be utilised as seeds, one of its basic character, i.e. its consumption as food by human beings or animals or for extraction for the like purpose, gets irretrievably lost and such processed seeds become a commodity distinct from food grains as commonly understood. That distinction was borne in mind by the High Court in allowing the writ petition of the respondents, and in our view rightly.” But in the instant case only seeds are purchased from farmers that too without any risk sharing at cultivation level with grower. In such a situation any agreement or arrangement on paper with agriculturists renders no help to assessee for allowing deduction under section 80-I & 80IA. Assessee should produce different commodities out of raw materials with the help of systematic activity to be entitled to claim deductions u/s. 80-I and 80IA of the Act, which has not been done by assessee in this case. In this case seed is raw material and end product is seed. Assessee is not purchasing food grains but only seeds are being purchased from growers so there is no question of any genetic or chemical irreversible change in raw material. So the ratio of the decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Krishi Utpadan mandi Samity & Ors, v. Pilibhit Pantnagar Bej Ltd. & Anr(s) (supra) is of no help to the assessee. Various decisions based on the decision in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samity & Ors. v. Pilibhit Pantnagar Beej Ltd. & Anr.(s)(supra) also do not help the assessee. Even the contents of partnership deed of assessee firm, agreement entered by the assessee with agriculturists does not help the assessee. The details of salary and process render no help to assessee as far as allowability of deduction under section 80-I and 80-IA is concerned. It is only paper work. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that no interference from our side is called for and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly.”

4.9 In view of the decision of the Tribunal, Mr. Soparkar has contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the assessee is not carrying on the manufacturing activities. He has further contended that Assessing Officer, CIT(Appeals) and Tribunal have not considered the letter dated 26.2.2003. The relevant para- 4 of the said letter reads as under:

“4. We have duly employed more than ten workers in the new unit (driven by power). This is clear even from the statements of Shri Girdharilal L. Jaipal, Mukadam, recorded on 15.6.2001 during survey u/s. 133A. It clearly says that in addition to 8 workers regularly employed by the Company, his 10 workers were working with him. In addition thereto, in the packing division, 13 to 15 workers were working. Thus, as per his statement itself, total number of workers employed works out to about 33, which is much more than minimum number of workers i.e. 10, prescribed under Section 80(2)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Even otherwise, we state that on an average over the year we are employing more than 30 workers in our processing units at Isnapur.

We have already furnished list of employees consisting of approximately 75 persons vide our letter dated 4th February, 1993 i.e. during the original assessment proceedings. We have with us vouchers, evidencing the payment made to these persons by way of wages. Labour employed through contractors form part of number of workers employed in the unit. This is supported by the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. V. Narania & Co. (252 ITR 884). Further there can be no hard and fast rules by which one can determine whether there has been substantial compliance with the prescribed limit of at least 10 workers employed in the undertaking even though number of workers employed during some part of the previous year may be less than 10. This is supported by the decisions of (I) CIT v. Sawyers’s Asia Ltd. (1980) [122 ITR 259] (Bom) (ii)CIT v. Ormerods (I) (P) Ltd. (1989) [176 ITR 470] (Bom) and (iii) CIT v. Harit Synthetic Fabrics (P) Ltd. (1986) [162 ITR 640] (Bom).

4.10 Mr. Soparkar learned counsel contended that the finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the evidence on record.

5.1 Mr. Mehta learned counsel for Revenue has tried to distinguish two decisions of Supreme Court and contended that in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Seedsman Association, Hyderabad and Ors. v. Principal Secretary to Govt. A.P. & Ors., reported in (2004) 9 SCC 56, where both the decisions of the Supreme Court are considered in paras 8 & 9, which read as under:

“8. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. There are two decisions of this Court touching upon the controversy in hand. The first one is State of Rajsthan v. Rajasthan Agriculture Input Dealers’ Assn. In this case, the High Court took the view that when goodgrains of particular varieties were treated and subjected to chemical process for preservation, those grains become commercially known as “seeds”. If, however, a dealer was found dealing in foodgrains under the garb of seeds, the authorities were not precluded from prosecuting the offender in a criminal court. The judgment of the High Court was upheld on the following premise:(SCC p. 483, para 7)

“7. It is undoubtedly true that foodgrains per se could be used a seeds for being sown and achieving germination, but in that form they retain the dual utility of being foodgrains as well as seeds. By process of coating and applying insecticides, other chemicals and poisonous substances to the foodgrain meant to be utilised as seeds, one of its basic character i.e. its consumption as food by human beings or animals or for extraction for the like purpose, gets irretrievably lost and such processed seeds become a commodity distinct from foodgrains as commonly understood. That distinction was borne in mind by the High Court in allowing the writ petition of the respondents, and in our view rightly.”

9. A similar controversy has recently been examined again by this Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Pilibhit Pantnagar Beej Ltd. The High Court allowed the writ petition of the respondent Company, namely Polibhit Pantnagar Beej Ltd. and issued a writ of mandamus restraining the Agricultural Market Committee from interfering in the business of the Company in certified seeds and from demanding and realizing market fee on the transaction of unprocessed or processed certified seeds. The case set up by the Company was that the business of the Company is to purchase “breeder seeds” from the Agricultural Research Institute and thereafter to produce “certified seeds”. The first step of production is to distribute these breeder seeds to the listed and scheduled farmers. The breeder seeds are sown and are germinated under strict supervision of the statutory Seed Certification Agency, set up under the Seeds Act, 1966. The harvest is selected carefully under supervision of the Agency. The lots which do not conform to specifications are rejected. The standardized seeds so obtained are called “foundation seeds”. These foundation seeds are thereafter again supplied to the listed farmers varietywise within intimation to the Agency. The farmers sow these foundation seeds which are also supervised by the Agency. This crop is thus germinated under strict supervision of the Agency and the lots rejected are not taken back by farmers. After harvesting the approved standardized certified seeds, the lots are fumigated for preservation and the samples of each lot are tested in the laboratories of the Seed Certification Agency. The rejected lots and losses at processing are returned to farmers only after the foundation seeds are certified as conforming to specifications, the lots are subjected to treatment with insecticides (cell phose, quick phose) and pesticides (thiram and barastin) at the time of packing. The Company had filed certificates issued by the Seed Certification Agency and other relevant documents to show that they are not dealing in sale and purchase of foodgrains or wheat but only in certified seeds and that the stock stored by them were not of wheat but of certified seeds of wheat under the supervision of the U.P. Seed Certification Agency. Having regard to the material produced by the Company, it was held that as the wheat seed converted into certified seed is unfit for human consumption, the levy of market fee is not permissible.

5.2 Mr. Mehta has also drawn our attention to para-5 of the order of Tribunal and contended that the process is not identical to the case of Navbharat Seeds (P) Ltd., and therefore, assessee is not entitled to deduction under sec. 80IA of the IT Act. Mr. Mehta further contended that at least 10 employees are there, and therefore, even if it is a manufacturing process, they are not entitled to the benefit of sec. 80IA of the IT Act. Mr. Mehta has also pointed out that change of use will not be a conclusive proof in the manufacturing process. Mr. Mehta has heavily relied on the decision of the Tribunal in Tax Appeal No. 538/2004 preferred by the assessee.

6. Before proceeding further with the matter, the question which was posed for our consideration are whether he is entitled to the benefit or not. The Tribunal in the subsequent years which are also subject matter of Navbharat Seeds (P) Ltd. which has been confirmed by this Court as well as by Hon’ble Supreme Court. We have gone through the chart which is produced on record at page 186 to 191, which is as under:

NAVBHARAT SEEDS PRIVATE LTD. NEW NANDI SEEDS CORPORATION GUJARAT STATE

SEED

CERTIFICATION

AGENCY

1 NAVBHARAT SEEDS PRIVATE

LIMITED, a company registered on 23rd April, 1981 under the Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at 4, Sarvodaya Commerical Center, Salapose Road, Ahmedabad. The company is engaged in production, processing and marketing of various hybrid seeds of different crops such as hybrid Bajra, hybrid cotton, hybrid Jowar, hybrid maize and hybrid castor etc. The activities of the company comprises of following:

1. Production of hybrid seeds

2. Processing of hybrid seeds

3 Testing and quality control

4 Marketing of seeds

Ours is a registered partnership firm constituted as per partnership deed Dt. 12.11.1980, having main office at 6741, Relief Road (now at 1- Patel Society, Gulbai Tekra, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-6). We deal in Hybrid Bajra, Hybrid Cotton, Wheat and Mustard Seed. The business activities are same as those of Navbharat Seeds Pvt Ltd. as it is necessary for seed production and marketing of the Commodity i.e. ‘PROCESSED SEED.’ Thus the activities viz:

1. Production of Hybrid Seeds

2. Processing of Hybrid Seeds

3. Testing and Quality Control

4. Marketing of Seeds Are the basic and essential for all seed producing companies No comment required from Seed Certification Agency.

1 This fact is confirmed in the enclosed certificate dated 24th February 2003 issued by Gujarat State Seed Certification Agency.

2 All the above activities are conducted as per the “Indian Minimum Seeds Certification Standards” stipulated by Central Seed Certification Rules and Laws prescribed by Govt. remain same for all seed producers. The procedure is narrated in the enclosed certificate.

Board, Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. The company is producing, processing and marketing certified seeds. Gujarat State Seeds Certification Agency inspect the seed production field, processing plant and test seeds in notified Government Laboratories and issue tags for each and every bag.

3 (1) Production of Hybrid Seeds.

3.1 (a) Company is producing hybrid seeds through its contract growers. Contract growers are selected according to yield potentiality of the area, availability compact are irrigation facility and plots having no isolation problem (isolation distance). The contract is entered into with each and every sub-producer in the beginning of season. Accounting period for this is 1.10.81 to 30.9.82. However, agreement with sub-producer has got to be entered into before commencement of the season concerned. Accordingly, two specimen agreements Dt. 26.5.81 and 2.6.81 which were effectively in force in this accounting year are enclosed herewith along with English Translation (appendix 1).

The system of selecting the area is a universal system hence; we also select the area with same criteria, depending upon the crop. The major crop dealt with us is Bajra, for which the block of production area is larger than that in case of Cotton. So we enter into an agreement with a group of grower instead of individual grower. Copy of one such agreement is submitted to the then assessing officers in respect of assessment proceeding of AY 1991-1992, however, enclosed herewith again. Most of the terms and condition are identical to those in case of agreement of Navbharat Seeds Pvt. Ltd.

Being a commercial transaction no comment required from State Seed Certification Agency.

3.2 (b)After selection of contract growers and seed plots, company distribute foundation seed i.e. male and female parents through its technical staff, to the sub-producers. The foundation seeds are distributed to contract growers free of cost or at concessional rate or at cost depending on contractual agreement.

Required quantity of Male and Female i.e. Foundation Seed is supplied to the growers by us. We have to bear some portion of the cost of foundation seed so supplied.

No comment required from State Seed Certification Agency.

3.3 Actually, it is not a sale but only an account adjustment for joint venture of seed production. Each and every seed plot so organized is to be registered with Government Seed Certification Agency in the name of Company as main producer and farmer as sub- producer.

The registration procedure of seed plots with State Certification Agency is same for everybody. We have to submit before the Seed Certification Agency with empty containers and tags to establish, the authentic source of foundation seed supplied to growers.

The mandatory requirement of submission/ varification of source of foundation seed is narrated in Para-1 of the enclosed certificate of GSCCA.

3.4 (c) Technical guidance; After distribution of foundation seeds, company’s technical staff give guidance to the farmer about the planting of male and female plants in rows (planting ratio) and inspect the seed plots so organized time to time. Company’s technical staff supervises the work of regueing, crossing and other cultivation practices asper the crop. Rogueing, in We have a very large team of experienced field staff, headed by a Ph.D. Scientist to carry, supervise and guide the growers in respect of technical problems in process of sowing, raising the crop, rouging the field to maintain genetic purity and hybridisation of male and female parents. Our staff remain present in the field while harvesting, thrashing This is narrated in on the first page of enclosed certificate from GSCCA.

seed producing good yield of superior quality. Such plots which meets minimum seed certification standard, prescribed by Government of India, are harvested in the presence of company’s representative and Government Seed Certification Agency staff. The seeds thus produced is called as hybrid seeds that is produced by crossing of male and female seed plants. After harvesting threshing, the samples are drawn by the staff of State Seed Certification Agency and tested at Government Seed Testing Laboratories for germination, physical purity and genetic purity. If this seed conforms to the standards prescribed by the Government of India in the Minimum Seed Certification Standards then it will be certified seed. etc to guide the growers in respect of all stages to ensure the purity. The staff of State Certification Agency visits the seed plot at different stages of crop, while our staff visits the field almost everyday.

Upon maturity of crop, the earheads of female plants are harvested separately, which will be thrashed and sealed by the supervisors for further processing for making it fit for use as “SEED”. The grain from male plant is not “SEED” hence it will not be sent for processing.

This is confirmed in Para-2 of enclosed certificate from GSCCA This is also confirmed in the same para-2 of certificate.

4 (2)Manufacturing Process Seed processing sequence and equipment:

4.1 (a) Moisture meter: Testing moisture content to decide need for drying.

We have moisture meter. Our area of Bajra Seed Production i.e. Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh fall in Semi Arid Zone of Climate. The moisture content of Bajra Seed produced in this Zone is naturally controlled. Due to this reason, State Seed Certification Agency also do not conduct moisture test for every samples of seed produced in this area. However, we do test moisture in some of the seed lots.

4.2 (b) Air screen cleaner:To clean the seed We use mechanised grader Machines for cleaning and separating Stems, Gloom, Light weight, small and broker seed.

This is a mandatory requirement, described under point No. 3 of the certificate

4.3 (C)Gravity separator: To upgrade the quality of seed Gravity Separator is not of much use in case of Bajra seed.

4.4 (d)Slurry separator: To treat the seed with chemicals for protection against inspects & micro-organisms.

We use the same type of Slurry Treator for treating Bajra and other seed. Castor Seed, being soft and larger in size, will brake in Slurry Treator hence the treatment has to be done manually.

This procedure of seed treatment is described under point No. 3 in the enclosed certificate of GSSCA.

5 On receipt of the raw seed from the farmer’s field the seeds are dried and tested for moisture content. Afterwards the seeds are cleaned on Air Screen cleaner. This process removes immature seed, dust particles, plant materials, off size seed diseased or insect damaged seed etc. After basic cleaning the seeds are upgraded on gravity separator to improve the quality of seed by using As mentioned above Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh fall in Semi Arid Zone of climate, the moisture content in seed produced in this area is naturally controlled. Due to this reason, only some lots need to be dried. Then the seed is cleaned with the help of Seed Grader Machines. In this machine under size and light weight seed which possesses less capacity for This is described as mandatory requirement in para-3 of the enclosed certificate of GSSCA. weight component difference between seeds. The seed then treated with 1% mercurial fungicides and DDT in Slurry Seed Treator. This is done to protect seed against seed borne and soil borne micro-organisms.

germination and vigor along with plant stem, gloom, clinkers and dust etc. known as inert matter are removed with the help of sieves and air blower. The good seeds having good vigor and germination capacity is separated and then subjected to treatment of poisonous pesticides, which boost the capacity of seed to resist the attack of pest and disease in the field of farmers, who sow the seed for commercial cultivation.

6 In case of hybrid cotton seed raw hybrid seed is treated in a tank with concentrated H. This process will dissolve fuzz, lint and wax of seed coat. After that with lime solution the seed is neutralized. These processes will make the seed free flowing. The same seed is then run on Air Screen Cleaner,Gravity separator and slurry treator to improve the quality of seed. This treatment is applicable in case of cotton seed only.

7 (3) Testing and quality control:

7.1 At each and every stage of seed production and processing, technical staff of the company take appropriate quality control measures. The seed processed as above will be treated for:

(a) Moisture content

(b) Germination

(c) Physical purity

(d) Genetic purity

We have a large team of field supervisors, who regularly visit all corners of seed production area, when crop is in raising stage till it is harvested. We also perform all these tests accept moisture test, which is performed wherever required.

This is narrated in on the first page of enclosed certificate from GSCCA.

7.2 These testing is done by Gujarat State Seed Testing Laboratories (Government owned) as well as company’s own laboratory. On getting satisfactory test results the seed will be declared as “certified seed” by State Seed Certification Agency.

All samples of seed lots of Certified Seed is tested by Government notified laboratory. In respect of labeled (non-certified) seed, we have to perform these t4ests on our own.

This is described in point no. 3 of the enclosed certificate.

8 (4) Marketing:

8.1 The Seed on getting satisfactory test results are marked with blue tag (Enclosure II) issued by Gujarat State Seed Certification Agency.

As per Seed Act, 1966 the seed container and tag must have The same type of tags are issued by the supervising officer of Strate Certification Agency who supervises the processing activities at our processing plant. Such tags are individually signed by the officer and then stitched along with another tag of producing company, to the seed container (cloth bag) and a seal bearing monogram of the certification agency and an identification of the officer is fixed with the container.

The treatment of poisonous This is a mandatory requirement by law, which is described under point no. 3 of the enclosed certificate. This is mandatory following on the tag and bag:

“DO NOT USE FOR FOOD, FED AND OIL PURPOSE. POISON TREATED WITH 1% PMS FUNGICIDE.”

pesticide is mandatory and hence this warning is also compulsory to be printed in RED ink on each container.

requirement by law, which is described under point No. 3 of the enclosed certificate.

9 The hybrid seeds are marked by the company mainly in the State of Gujarat and Maharashtra through its distributors/dealers network.” Bajra being our main crop, we possess strong distributors/dealer network in Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Maharashtra.

6.1 In that view of the matter, from the above chart, it appears that the same process also been certified by the Gujarat State Seed Certification Agency and from the certificate issued by the said Agency which clearly describes the manufacturing process, and in view of the two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the production of the assessee is not fit for human consumption.

7. It would be relevant for us to refer to the term “manufacture” and “process” as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, reads as under:

“Manufacture. The process or operation of making goods or any material produced by hand,by machinery or by other agency; anything made from raw materials by hand, by machinery, or by art. The production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving such materials new forms, qualities, properties or combinations, whether by hand labour or machiner. Cain’s Coffee Co. v. City of Muskogee, 171 Okl. 635, 44 P.2d 50, 52. In patent law, any useful product made directly by human labor, or by the aid of machinery directed and controlled by human power, and either from raw materials, or from materials worked up into a new form. Also the process by which such products are made or fashioned. Manufacturer. One who by labor, art, or skill transforms raw material into some kind of a finished product or article of trade. Henry v. Markesan State Bank, C.C.A. Minn., 68 F.2d 554, 557. Any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal relationship which manufactures, assembles, or produces goods.”

8. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the production is not fit for human consumption, and therefore, it changes its original form. If we look at the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, reported in [2001] 251 ITR 323, the word “manufacture” is defined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at page 327, which reads as under:

“The word “manufacture” has not been defined in the Act. In the absence of a definition of the word “manufacture” it has to be given a meaning as is understood in common parlance. It is to be understood as meaning the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving such materials new forms, qualities or combinations whether by hand labour or machines. If the change made in the article results in a new and different article then it would amount to a manufacturing activity.”

8.1 In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the contention raised by the department that it is not a manufacturing process, is devoid of merit and the same is required to be rejected. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, reported in [2001] 251 ITR 323.

8.2 Apart from that, the Tribunal itself in subsequent year has accepted the same in one of the assessment year which is a lead matter for AY 1992-93. It seems that the department has accepted the judgment and has not challenged the judgment of the Tribunal and the other judgment which is sought to be relied on which is of identical issue of the Bombay High Court, Madras High Court and Allahabad High Court also require to be accepted. 8.3 In that view of the matter, looking to the certificate issued by the Gujarat State Seed Certification Agency, Ahmedabad and the process shown on the record, we are of the opinion that the process of assessee and the process of Navbharat Seeds (P.) Ltd. is the same and the same has also been certified by the competent authority which is required to be accepted as it being a State Agency and we are accepting the same.

8.4 The Tribunal has also accepted for the subsequent year, and therefore, there is no reason for us to disagree with the Tribunal, and we accept the same.

9. In that view of the matter, the issue which is now concluded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it will not be appropriate to take a different view, more particularly, the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, reported in [2001] 251 ITR 323, and this is a manufacturing process and it is not fit for human consumption.

9.1 In our view, when the product is to be disposed of immediately even that the product is not fit for human consumption. If it is required to be preserved, it seems to be a manufacturing process, and therefore, in our view, the finding of the Tribunal is misconceived and required to be reversed and the view taken in the subsequent year is accepted.

9.2 We have also gone through the letter, from which, it is clear that more than 10 employees are working there, which fulfills the condition, and therefore, the assessee is entitled for the benefit under sec. 80IA of the IT Act. In the premise, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

9.3 All the questions raised are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The chart which we have referred and reproduced hereinabove is not part of the judgment though it was not produced along with the judgment by the Tribunal, however, we have taken it as part of the judgment and considered the same as part of the judgment. We hope that the learned counsel for Revenue will comply with the order within a period of one month.

(K.S.JHAVERI, J.)

(K.J.THAKER, J)