The Income-tax Officer, Jalandhar V. M/s. Nawanshahr Coop Sugar Mills, Ltd, Nawanshahr

ITA 311/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 31120914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: INDER JIT SHARMA CAS; SSH ADITYA SHARMA
• Section: 133A; 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 311, 312, 313 & 314(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-201 1 PAN :AAAFD5602K INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. M/S. NAWANSHAHAR CO-OP. SU GAR MILLS LTD; (TDS)-1, JALANDHAR. NAWANSHAHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH.TARSEM LAL, DR RESPONDENT BY:S/SH. ADITYA SHARMA & INDER JIT SHARMA, CAS DATE OF HEARING: 06/11/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:19/11/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THE REVENUE HAS FILED THESE FOUR APPEALS AGAINST T HE CONSOLIDATED IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A), JALANDHAR, DATED 28.05.20 12 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 RESPE CTIVELY. AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS COMMON, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.311( ASR)/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER, A S THE GROUNDS RAISED IN OTHER APPEALS ARE ALSO IDENTICAL: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE BAGASSES IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF SCR APS AS PER SECTION 206(C) AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO COLLECT TAX AT SOURCE. 2. THAT APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF . 2. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPE RATIVE SOCIETY AND IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF SUGAR. INSPECTION U/S 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT) WAS CARRI ED OUT AT ASSESSEES SUGAR MILL ON 29.12.2010 TO VERIFY THE COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE TDS/TCS UNDER CHAPTER XVII OF THE ACT. THE AO FOUND CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES WHICH INCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SE LLING MOLASSES AND BAGASSES GENERATED DURING THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS TO DIFFERENT PERSONS WITHOUT COLLECT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 206C OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY, AS TO HOW THE PROVISIONS OF TCS WERE NOT APPLICABLE ON SALE OF THESE ITEMS, THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE (IN SHORT PR) VIDE HIS REPLY D ATED 09.03.2011 HAS SATED THAT MOLASSES GENERATED DURING MANUFACTURING PROCES S COULD NOT BE TERMED AS SCRAP FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 206C SINCE IT IS A BY-PRODUCT OF THE 3 PROCESS OF MANUFACTURE. SECONDLY, MOLASSES IS DIFFE RENT FROM SCRAP AS IT IS A DISTINCT PRODUCT PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF MANU FACTURE OF SUGAR, IT IS MARKETABLE AS SUCH AND IT IS A PRODUCT ON WHICH EXC ISE DUTY IS LEVIED AND IS USABLE AS SUCH. AS REGARDS BAGASSES, IT IS CONTENDE D THAT IT IS USED AS BIO FUEL. ALSO, IT IS USED AS A RENEWABLE RESOURCE IN T HE MANUFACTURE OF PULP AND PAPER PRODUCTS AND BUILDING MATERIALS. THE ASSESSEE FINALLY CONTENDED THAT BOTH MOLASSES AND BAGASSES DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF SCRAP AS PER EXPLANATION (B) TO SECTION 206C OF THE ACT. THE AO CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE AND DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAM E AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO COLLECT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE SALE OF MOLASSES AND SIMILARLY AS REGARDS TO BAGASSES, THE SAME IS BEING SOLD TO M/S. ABC PAPER MILL LTD; USE IT FOR MANUFACTURE OF PULP, PAPER AND BUILDING MATERIALS. NO TAX HAS BEEN COLLECT AT SOURCE NOR ANY DECLARATION U/S 27C HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE COMPANY. WITH THE SAME ANALOGY, THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS GOVERNING COLLECTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON THE SALE OF BAGASSE ALSO AND AO WAS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO COLLECT TAX AT SOURCE ON SALE OF MOLASSES AND BAGASSSE SINCE TH E SAME WASTE IN THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS WHICH IS MANUFACTURE OF SUGAR A ND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COLLECT THE TAX AT SOURCE AND IS IN DEFA ULT AND ALSO LIABLE TO PAY TAX INVOLVED TO THE CREDIT OF CENTRAL GOVT. A/C WITHI N THE MEANING OF SECTION 4 206C(6A) OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS CALCULATED THE AMOU NT OF DEFAULT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALONGWITH INTER EST U/S 206C(7) OF THE ACT, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITO, (TDS)- 1, JALANDHAR, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE COMBINED IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.05.2012 PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT BAGASSES ARE NOT SCRAP FOR THE PURP OSE OF SECTION 206C OF THE ACT. HE UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO IN HOLDING THE ASSESSEE TO BE IN DEFAULT U/S 206C(6) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF SALE OF MOLASS ES AND CHARGING INTEREST U/S 206C(7) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) FINALLY HELD THAT IN RESPECT OF THE SALE OF BAGASSES BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TO LIABLE TO COLLECT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 206C(1) OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENT DE MAND RAISED U/S 206C(6) AND THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S 206C(7) OF THE ACT ARE VACATED AND HE DIRECTED THE AO TO MODIFY THE DEMAND RAISED ON ACCOUNT OF NO N-COLLECTION AT SOURCE AND THE INTEREST PAYABLE B THE ASSESSEE VIDE IMPUGN ED ORDER DATED 28.05.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN DISPUTE. NOW , AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESEN T APPEAL BEFORE THIS BENCH. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND STATED THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y HAS WRONGLY HELD THAT THE 5 BAGASSE IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF SCRA P AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206C AND ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO COLLECT TAX AT SOURCE. HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS DEFINITION OF SECTION 20 6C OF THE ACT AS WELL AS THE DEFINITION OF MOLASSES AND BAGASSES AS WELL AS THE SCRAP AND REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE MAY BE ACCEPTE D AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY MAY BE M ODIFIED BY RESTORING THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E CONTROVERTED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. DR AND STATED THAT TH E LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE BY RESPE CTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VARIOUS PASSED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT AS WELL AS BY THE ITAT. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE UPHELD BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE CITATIONS CITED B Y THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. NO DOUBT, THE INSP ECTING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF INSPECTION HAS NOTICED THAT THERE ARE SOM E DISCREPANCIES IN COLLECTING TAX AT SOURCE U/S 206C OF THE ACT ( SALE OF MOLASSES & BAGASSES) 6 AND THE AO CALLED THE EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE I.E. PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE HAS GIVEN HIS EXPLANATION THAT MOLASSES AND BAGASSE AND BAGASSE GENERATED DU RING THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS COULD NOT BE TERMED AS SCRAP FOR THE PURPOS E OF SECTION 206C SINCE IT IS A BY-PRODUCT OF THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURE. THER EFORE, MOLASSES AND BAGASSES ARE DIFFERENT FROM SCRAP AND DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF SCRAP AS PER EXPLANATION (B) TO SECTION 206C OF THE ACT. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE AND REJECTED THE SAME AND HELD THAT THE MATERIAL SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AS WASTE WAS NOT US ABLE AS SUCH BUT REQUIRED A NUMBER OF PROCESSES BEFORE BEING ABLE TO PUT TO U SE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO COLLECT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE SALE OF MOLASSES. BUT AS REGARDS BAGASSE, THE SAME IS BEING SOLD TO M/S. ABC PAPER MILLS LTD. WHO USED IT FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF PULP, PAPER AND BUIL DING MATERIALS. NO TAX HAS BEEN COLLECTED AT SOURCE NOR ANY DECLARATION U/S 27 C HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE COMPANY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS GOVERNING COLLECTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON THE SALE O F BAGASSE ALSO AND THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE IS LIABLE TO COLLECT TAX AT SOUR CE ON THE SALE OF THESE ITEMS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COLLECT THE TAX AT SOURCE AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN DEFAULT AND LIABLE TO PAY THE TAX INVOLVED TO THE C REDIT OF CENTRAL GOVT. A/C WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 206C(6A) OF THE ACT, THE A.O. CALCULATED THE 7 TAX AND INTEREST IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR IN DISPUTE. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES IN DE TAIL AND THOROUGHLY GOING THROUGH THE DEFINITION OF MOLASSES AND BAGASSES AS WELL AS THE SCRAP AND WASTE WITH THE HELP OF RECENT DECISION OF ITAT AH MEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF NAVNINE FLOURINE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VS. ACIT, TDS, SURAT 14 ITR (TRIB.) 481 AS WELL AS BY RELYING UPON THE JUDG MENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GURUDEVDATTA VKSSS MAR YADIT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AIR [2001] SC, 1980 HAS HELD THAT ADDIN G MEANING TO THE SIMPLE MEANING LAID DOWN IN THE STATUTE IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE W RITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THOROUGHLY IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTE NDED THAT A.O. HAS GIVEN SOME REFERENCE REGARDING PROCESSING OF PETRO LEUM PRODUCTS WHEREIN VARIOUS PRODUCTS EMERGE WHILE PROCESSING OF CRUDE O IL TO PETROL. THESE PRODUCTS ARE NOT CONSIDERED AS SCRAP. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF PRODUCTION OF SUGAR, MOLASSES AND BAGASSES EMERGE AS DISTINCT SAL EABLE PRODUCTS. MOLASSES AND BAGASSES ARE THEREFORE, NOT SCRAP AS CITED IN T HE EXAMPLE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS BY THE AO. THEY ARE NOT WASTE AND SCRA P AND CAN ALSO BE USED AS SUCH, THUS, COMING OUT OF THE MEANING OF SCRAP. 8 6.1. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AFTER DISCUS SING IN DETAIL THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES ALONGWITH VARIOUS C ASE LAWS AS WELL AS SUGARCANE CONTROL ORDER (1966) DATED 16.07.1966 FIN ALLY CONCLUDED IN PARAS 12, 13, 13.1, 14, 15 & 16 AS UNDER: 12 IN A MANUFACTURING CONCERN, RAW MATERIAL IS CONVER TED INTO CERTAIN PRODUCTS. THE PRODUCT MANUFACTURED BY THE C ONCERN IS USUALLY TERMED THE FINISHED PRODUCT OF THE CONCERN, EVEN TH OUGH THE SAME MAY NOT BE USABLE DIRECTLY BY THE CUSTOMER, AND MAY HAV E TO BE FURTHER PROCESSED BY ANOTHER CONCERN OR BE PART OF THE COMP ONENT OF ANOTHER PRODUCT MANUFACTURED BY ANOTHER CONCERN. IN THE COU RSE OF MANUFACTURE OF THE FINISHED PRODUCT, CERTAIN INTERM EDIATE PRODUCTS MAY BE MANUFACTURED OR SOME SEMI-FINISHED GOODS MAY BE MADE READY, WHICH NEED FURTHER PROCESSING TO BECOME FINI SHED GOODS. CERTAIN BY-PRODUCTS MAY ALSO BE GENERATED IN THE MA NUFACTURING PROCESS. BYE PRODUCT IS NORMALLY CONSIDERED AS A PR ODUCT WHICH IS NOT INTENDED TO BE MANUFACTURED, BUT IS BEING OBTAINED IN THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING OF ANOTHER PRODUCT WHICH IS INTENDED TO BE MANUFACTURED. CERTAIN WASTE AND SCRAP MAY ALSO BE G ENERATED IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS AS BY-PRODUCTS. 13. IN THE CASE OF TATA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. VS. C .C.E, DATED 16 DECEMBER,1994, 1994 SCC (1) 323, JT 1995 (1) 72, TH E HONBLE APEX COURT NOTED THAT SCRAP ACCORDING TO DICTIONARY ME ANT A SMALL PIECE CUT OR BROKEN FROM SOMETHING; FRAGMENT. THEY NOTED THAT IN COMMERCIAL PARLANCE SCRAP WAS NORMALLY UNDERSTOOD AS WASTE THOUGH IT MAY BE USED FOR RE-ROLLING OR RE-MELTING FOR BRINGING OUT RAW MATERIAL TO BE USED FOR PRODUCING FINISHED PROD UCTS. THE HONBLE APEX COURT HELD THAT SCRAP WAS NORMALLY UNDERSTOOD AS SOMETHING WHICH WAS NOT SERVICEABLE, BUT THAT THIS TERM COULD NOT APPLY TO A SEMI-FINISHED PRODUCT. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT A S UBSTANDARD ARTICLE WAS NOT SCRAP AS UNDERSTOOD IN COMMERCIAL PARLANCE OR TRADE CIRCLE. IN THE CASE OF NAVINE FLUORINE INTERNATIONAL .TD. V S. ACIT, TDS CIRCLE, SURAT (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, THE HO NBLE TRIBUNAL HAVE 9 NOTED THAT THE ORDINARY MEANING OF SCRAP AND WASTE AS HAD BEEN PROVIDED IN OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY WAS:- (A) SCRAP SMALL PIECE OR AMOUNT OF SOMETHING ESPE CIALLY ONE THAT IS LEFTOVER AFTER GREATER PART HAS BEEN USED MATERIAL DISCARDED FOR REPROCESSING. (B) WASTE- ELIMINATED OR DISCARDED AS NO LONGER USE FUL OR REQUIRED. 13.1. THUS, SCRAP MEANS SOMETHING LEFT BEHIND FROM THE BIGGER PART, NOT SERVICEABLE, LEFTOVER, BUT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE USED FOR REPROCESSING OR BRINGING OUT RAW MATERIAL OR OTHER USEFUL PRODUCT. IT MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT VALUE, SINCE SCRAP PRODUCED IN SEVERAL INDUSTRIES IS SOLD FOR LARGE VALUES, E.G. IN THE IR ON AND STEEL INDUSTRY. 14. IN THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURE OF SUGAR, MOLASSE S IS LEFT BEHIND AFTER THE SUGAR HAS CRYSTALLIZED FROM THE SYRUP. MO LASSES CANNOT BE USED DIRECTLY. TILL SOME TIME AGO, DISPOSAL OF MOLA SSES USED TO BE A BIG PROBLEM, AS OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ATMA RAM (DIED) THRU LRS VS STATE OF HARYANA (2008) 2 SCC 568. HENCE, IT WAS CERTAINLY WASTE AND SCRAP EARLIER. HO WEVER, WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, MOLASSES ARE BEING PRODU CED IN LARGE QUANTITIES FOR PRODUCING ALCOHOL AND ETHANOL. HOWEV ER, WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, MOLASSES ARE BEING PRODU CED IN LARGE QUANTITIES FOR PRODUCING ALCOHOL AND ETHANOL. HOWEV ER, IN MY OPINION, MERELY MOLASSES HAVE FOUND USE FOR PRODUCI NG COMMERCIALLY VALUABLE PRODUCTS, ITS NATURE AS A WASTE OR SCRAP W ILL NOT CHANGE. MOLASSES IS ESSENTIALLY A LEFTOVER FROM THE PROCES S OF MANUFACTURE OF SUGAR. IT CANNOT BE USED DIRECTLY AND NEEDS TO BE P ROCESSED FOR EXTRACTING ALCOHOL OR ETHANOL FROM IT, OR FOR PUTTI NG IT TO ANY OTHER USE. IN THAT SENSE, IT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE OUTPUT OF VARIOUS PRODUCTS FROM A PETROCHEMICAL PLAN PROCESSING CRUDE. THIS PL ANT YIELDS SEVERAL PRODUCTS LIKE DIESEL, PETROL, KEROSENE, ETC; WHICH CAN BE USED DIRECTLY. MOLASSES, HOWEVER, CANNOT BE USED DIRECTLY AND IS A LSO A LEFTOVER FROM THE SUGAR MANUFACTURING PROCESS. HENCE, I UPHOLD TH E VIEW OF THE AO THAT MOLASSES WAS SCRAP AS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION (B) TO SECTION 206C. 15. AS FAR AS BAGASSE IS CONCERNED, I FIND THAT APA RT FROM THE USE OF BAGASSE FOR MANUFACTURING PAPER BY WHICH USE ALON E IT WOULD FALL IN 10 THE SAME CATEGORY AS MOLASSES FOR THE REASONS DISCU SSED ABOVE IT IS QUITE OFTEN AND COMMONLY USED AS A FUEL, USUALLY IN THE SUGAR MILL THEMSELVES. THE SUGARCANE FIBROUS WASTE IS INITIALL Y MOIST AFTER CRUSHING, BUT MOST MILLS USE THEM AS FUEL AFTER DRY ING. HENCE, EVEN THOUGH BAGASSE IS IN THE NATURE OF SCRAP AND WASTE BECAUSE OF ITS NATURE, SINCE IT CAN BE USED DIRECTLY AS A FUEL, I HOLD THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS SCRAP FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTIO N 206C OF THE ACT. 16. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION AND DECISION ABO VE, I UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE AO IN HOLDING THE ASSESSEE TO BE IN D EFAULT U/S 206C(6) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE SALE AND MOLASSES. THE ACTION O THE AO IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 206C(7) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID DEFAULT IS ALSO UPHELD. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF SALE OF BAGASSE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE IS HELD NOT TO LIABLE TO CO LLECT AT SOURCE U/S 206(1) OF THE ACT. THE CONSEQUENT DEMAND RAISED U/S 206C(6) AND THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S 206C(7) OF THE ACT ARE VACATED IN RESPECT OF SUCH SALE OF BAGASSE. THE LD. AO IS DIRECTED TO MODIFY T HE DEMAND RAISED ON ACCOUNT OF NON-COLLECTION AT SOURCE AND THE INTE REST PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDINGLY. THIS DECISION WILL APPLY TO ALL THE FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL. 6.2 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE WELL REASONED ORDER PAS SED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN WHICH THE LD. FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND VARIOUS DECISION S RENDERED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT AS WELL AS VARIOUS OTHER COURTS AND FINA LLY COVERED THE MOLASSES UNDER THE DEFINITION OF EXPLANATION (B) TO SECTION 206C OF THE ACT. AS REGARDS TO BAGASSE IS CONCERNED, HE HELD THAT IT SH OULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS SCRAP FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 206C OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF TH E LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED A 11 WELL REASONED ORDER, WHICH NEEDS NOT INTERFERENCE AND ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 7. NOW, WE TAKE UP APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO S. 312, 313 & 314(ASR)/2012. THE FACTS OF THESE CASES ARE SIMILA R TO THE FACTS DISCUSSED SUPRA IN ITA NO. 311(ASR)/2012. THEREFORE, APPLYING THE SAME RATIO, WE DISMISS THESE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ALSO. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF THE REVEN UE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19TH NOVEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19TH NOVEMBER, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S. THE NAWANSHAHAR COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. NAWANSHAHAR. 2. THE ITO (TDS)-1, JALANDHAR. 3. THE CIT(A), JLR, 4. THE CIT, JLR 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.