Judgment:
J.S. Verma, C.J.
1. This is a revision against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 13th February, 1979, in a revision against the order dated 14th July, 1978 of the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jaipur passed under Section 12A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The Additional Commissioner held that the dealer was not entitled to the exemption from purchase tax by virtue of Notification No. F. 5(103) F. D. (C. T.)/66 dated 5th October, 1966, since the conditions for grant of the exemption were not fulfilled. However, in revision, the Board of Revenue has taken the opposite view and held that the conditions for grant of exemption have been fulfilled. Hence this further revision by the department.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the department is that one of the conditions for grant of the exemption under the notification dated 5th October, 1966 is that 'the goods should be used within the State in the manufacture of other ornaments or articles made of silver, or for being converted into bullion', but a part of the user in the present case was outside the State of Rajasthan inasmuch as die-casting of the ornaments was done in another State. Admittedly, the die-casting of the ornaments could not be done in the State of Rajasthan for want of such a facility, and it was only for this limited purpose during the process of manufacture of the ornaments that the same were sent out of the State of Rajasthan and then received back for ultimate user within the State of Rajasthan. It is urged by the learned counsel for the department that since a part of the process of manufacture of die-casting was not performed within the State of Rajasthan, this condition of the goods being used within the State was not satisfied, even though all the remaining conditions for grant of exemption under the notification were satisfied. In my opinion, the Board of Revenue has rightly rejected this contention. Merely because the goods were sent only for die-casting out of Rajasthan and then received back for completing the process of manufacture to enable its user within the State, it cannot be said that the user of the same was not within the State of Rajasthan. This condition of the notification was, therefore, also rightly held to be satisfied in the present case.
3. There is no ground to interfere in this revision. The revision is, therefore, dismissed.
4. No order as to costs.