This article is written by Anukrati Gupta, a student pursuing B.B.A.LL.B. from Symbiosis Law School Noida. In this article, she critically analyzes the Judicial History of Income Tax and Cement Manufacturing Companies.

Introduction

As per the statistics culled out by the government of India in the recent years, India is the second-largest producer and consumer of the cement industry. The major demand for cement is under sectors like housing and real estate, public infrastructure and industrial development; these three sectors constitute the major part of the economy. Cement industry has granted employment to more than one million people directly and indirectly. The industry because of its expanded nature attracts a lot of investment both from India and other foreign nations; and because of the huge amounts of money involved it attracts a lot of income tax for the revenue department of India. It further involves the judiciary system for a better and smooth working as it helps in preventing biased evaluations by the Income Tax Authorities. 

Further, the production process of cement is not that complicated. For the production/ manufacture of cement, there are different kinds of minerals which are required by the cement companies as their raw materials. The four major raw materials are limestone, clay, gypsum and water. Raw materials other than water are usually derived by the way of mining and digging of quarries. The production process starts with the crushing and grinding of limestone and clay separately in ball mills. After the proper crushing and grinding, these two raw materials are mixed with each other in a proportion of 3:1. 

After obtaining the mixture of the correct proportion of water is added. The addition of water in this mixture leads to the formation of slurry. The slurry is then poured in a furnace which moves in a circular direction and because of this characteristic circular movement, it is also known as a rotary kiln. The function of this rotary kiln is to make the slurry mixture dry by the way of heating it. For the heating process, coal is used as a raw material. Dried hot clinkers (solid form) are the resultant of this heating process. These clinkers are then cooled down by the use of air which forms the cool clinkers. These cool clinkers are then further added in the ball mills for grinding; here gypsum is added with the clinkers and the reason for the addition of the same is to prevent the resultant product from hardening. And after all of the foregoing process, the ultimate resultant is ‘cement’. The cement is then packed in gunny bags which further becomes ready for the purpose sale. And it is after that the income tax comes into the picture as this when the income of the manufacturer gets involved. Now, it is necessary to understand the role of judiciary and Income Tax under the cement industry as it helps in preventing biased assessments by the Assessment Officer over the manufacturer’s income and for the same the following mentioned cases will prove to be helpful.

1. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. (2010) (Supreme Court) 

There are two types of receipts that are considered to be of importance under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Receipts under a business organization are exactly the opposite of what the expenses are and without them, there can be no existence of a business. The two receipts are Capital receipt and Revenue receipt; the primary difference b/w the two is that Capital receipts are the receipts of non-recurring nature which either create the liability of the company or reduces the company’s assets whereas revenue receipts are the receipts of recurring nature and are reported in the statement of income of the company.

In this following case, there was an agreement between the two parties for the purchase of additional Cement Plant. Within the said agreement there was a clause stating if the seller fails in the supply of the machinery within the time specified then the purchaser (assessee) is liable to receive 5% compensation on the respective machinery without the actual loss. Later in the case, the purchaser (assessee) suffered a failure in the supply of the machinery and for the purpose of the same received 8.5 Lakhs. The department assessed the compensation amount to income tax. The assessee was aggrieved with the same raised a similar question in front of the Court. 

Here, in this case, Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court holding that the damages were directly and intimately linked with the procurement of a capital asset i.e., the cement plant, which led to delay in coming into existence of the profit-making apparatus. It was not a receipt in the course of the profit earning process. Therefore, the amount received by the assessee towards compensation for sterilization of the profit earning source, not in the ordinary course of business, hence is a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee. 

2. Glencore International AG vs. Dalmia Cement (2019) (Delhi High Court) 

In the following case law, there were two companies involved namely Glencore (Switzerland based firm) & Dalmia (Indian firm).

There was an agreement between both the parties regarding the purchase of coal. Glencore as per the clauses of the contract sent the consignment of coal, but Dalmia on the other hand for no good reason rejected the same. This Act of Dalmia of not accepting the consignment led to the breach of contract; for the purpose of the same Glencore instituted arbitration proceeding against Dalmia. The decision came in the favour of Glencore as it was proved by them that Dalmia was at fault and they had no specific or good reason to reject the delivery of coal consignment. Leading to the said decision Glencore requested for an arbitral award. 

Dalmia went to the High Court and under Section 48(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act took an objection against the same stating that there was no proper notice received by him as to the appointment of the arbitrator. Here again, the decision came in favour of Glencore. And further Glencore received compensation for the breach of contract.

A further question which came to the Court was: whether the amount received by Glencore towards the Breach of Contract is liable for taxation in India or not?

The Income Tax Authority contended that the amount received by the assessee was a ‘windfall gain’ and under Article 22(3) (talks about ‘other income’) of the DTAA between Switzerland and India, the said income will be taxed in India. Also, the department considered the money received by Glencore as arbitration cost and legal cost and stated it to be taxable under Article 22 as ‘fees for technical services’.

The Court here held that Article 22 covers income only from lotteries, puzzles, gambling etc which can be taxed in India and not the compensation received for the Breach of Contract. 

3. India Cements Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras (1965) (Supreme Court) 

The assessee, in this case, was a cement manufacturing-based public limited company. During the accounting year, it obtained a loan of 40 Lakhs rupees from the Industrial Finance Corporation of India; the loan was basically for the charge on fixed assets of the company. Now, while obtaining this loan there were several expenditures incurred by the Assessee. 

The question of law, in this case, was whether this expenditure can be allowed for deduction under Section 10 of the Act. 

The assessee for the purpose of taxation charged this expenditure in the profit and loss account for that year and instead showed it in the balance-sheet as mortgage loan expenses. The assessee wanted to treat the same as revenue expenditure but Madras High Court gave its opinion against the notion. The assessee not being satisfied with the judgment passed by the High Court appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was exclusively for the purpose of business. So, for the purpose of the question raised in the Court, the expenditure should be regarded as revenue expenditure for the purpose of deduction.

4. Assam Bengal Cement Companies vs. CIT (1995) (Supreme Court) 

According to the facts of this case the appellant company is Cement Company which is involved in manufacturing and selling of cement. The facts further go on to state that the appellant company acquired the lease of certain limestone quarries for the purpose of manufacture of cement; the lease acquired was for 20 years with a clause for renewal for a further term of 20 years. According to the clauses of the agreement, the rent reserved was a half-yearly rent of Rs. 3,000 for the first two years and thereafter half-yearly rent of Rs. 6,000 with provision for payment of further royalties in certain events. Further, as per clause 4 and 5 of the lease agreement, there was some special amount payable as “protection fees”. The appellant following the agreement paid sums of Rs. 40,000 in accordance with two covenants and claimed deduction under provisions of Section 10(2) (xv) of the Act. The appellant contended that such payments are not the expenditure of capital nature and thus are liable to be exempted under the Act.

The question which was to be decided in this case was whether the assessee is right in claiming the payments as capital expenditure? 

Income-Tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Appellate Tribunal and High Court rejected the contention of the appellant. Aggrieved by the previous decisions the appellant went in appeal before the Supreme Court against judgment and Order of High Court. The Court reached a conclusion stating that Income-tax authorities, as well as the High Court in regard to the nature of payments being a capital expenditure, are correct and the sums of Rs. 40,000 paid by the appellant was not allowable as deductions under Section 10(2). Further, the Court went on to state the difference between the two expenditures. The Court defined capital expenditure as expenditure incurred for acquiring or bringing into existence assets (income-earning assets) which is majorly for enduring the benefits of the business. On the other hand, if any asset brought for running the business or working with it to produce profits is revenue expenditure. The Court also stated that the aim and object would define the nature of expenditure.

5. Dalmia Cement Ltd. vs. CIT (1976) (Supreme Court) 

In the following case, the appellant/ assessee was the owner of four cement factories. One of the factories was situated in Pakistan. The assessee initiated an order for the supply of the machinery/ complete unit for the manufacture of cement. The order was confirmed by the seller in the year 1947 and the agreement between them stated that the supply will be in the year of 1948. India was divided in 1947, so the machinery which was supposed to be delivered to the plant set up in Pakistan was sent to Orissa with an agreement between the government and assessee. The contract further stated that the machinery will be further sold to the Orissa Cement Company. So in the year 1949 when the machinery was delivered to the assessee and sold to Orissa Cement Company, the assessee earned a profit of 7 Lakhs. 

The question forwarded to the Court was the treatment of this profit earned by the assessee.

Dalmia/ the assessee contended it to be capital revenue. On the other hand, the revenue department explained the same to be a business transaction under profits and gains for business and profession and stated that under the definition of business it is an adventure in the nature of trade and further will be business revenue and hence will be taxed. The Court here agreed with the department and gave a decision in favour of the revenue department. 

6. CIT Vs M/s. Poddar Cement Pvt. Ltd. Etc. (1997) (Supreme Court) 

The SC, in this case, ruled that for the purpose of taxation, the term ‘owner’ could not be interpreted in the strictest sense by restricting its meaning to only the ‘legal owner’ of a property. Giving a constructive interpretation to the term owner, the Court opined that the income would be chargeable to tax in the hands of the person who received or was entitled to receive income from the house property in his or her own right, and not on behalf of the owner. 

“One cannot reasonably and logically visualize as to when a person in actual physical control of the property realizing the entire income and usufructs of the property for his own use and not for the use of any other person, having the absolute power of disposal of the income so received, should be held not liable to tax merely because a vestige of legal ownership or a husk of title, in the long run, may yet clothe another person with the power of residual ownership when such contingency arises which is not a case even here.”

7. Xstrata Coal Marketing AG vs. Dalmia Cement (2019) (Delhi High Court) 

In the following case law, there were two companies involved namely Xstrata Coal Marketing (Switzerland based firm) & Dalmia (Indian firm).

There was an agreement between both the parties regarding the purchase and sale of coal. The contract stated the number of coal shipments, the code of conduct and other relevant information and the rights of the parties. Everything was fine till the first shipment but there raised some issues regarding the second shipment which further led to disagreement between the parties. Xstrata with respect to the same terminated the contract and instituted arbitration proceedings against the same. In the arbitration, the decision came in the favour of Xstrata and for the purpose of the same Xstrata requested for an arbitrational award.

Dalmia went to the High Court and under Section 48(2) (b) of the Arbitration Act took an objection stating the reason that the award, if passed, will be against public policy. The Court here gave the decision in favour of Xstrata. And further, they received compensation for the breach of contract.

A further question which came to the Court was: whether the amount received by Glencore towards the Breach of Contract is liable for taxation in India or not?

The Income Tax Authority contended that the amount received by the assessee was a ‘windfall gain’ and under Article 22(3) (talks about ‘other income’) of the DTAA between Switzerland and India, the said income will be taxed in India. Also, the department considered the money received by Glencore as arbitration cost and legal cost and stated it to be taxable under Article 22 as ‘fees for technical services’.

The Court here held that A22 covers income only from lotteries, puzzles, gambling etc which can be taxed in India and not the compensation received for the Breach of Contract.

8. Dalmia Dadri Cement vs. CIT (1980) (Delhi High Court) 

The following case talks about four different grounds relating to the calculation of tax for the assessee in the mentioned financial year i.e. 1962-63.

The assessee was a manufacturing company which was involved in the business of cement. The business included both manufacturing and sale of cement. For the purpose of sale, the companies use gunny bags (jute bags) to pack the cement for efficient and easy transportation. The companies usually use both new and second-hand gunny bags for the same purpose. But a government mandate came out in 1960 which stated that second-hand gunny bags for the purpose of selling cement can’t be used. With respect to the same mandate, the assessee ordered a huge consignment of gunny bags. Later on in the next year due to scarcity of jute, the mandate was removed, and owing to the fact that jute became a scarce material the price of jute increased. The assessee sold these jute bags and earned a profit of around Four Lakhs. So the question put forth by the Court was, what will be the treatment of this profit earned.

The Court here, in this case, stated that bags, if not sold, would have been used for the purpose of manufacture and sale of the cement (which constitutes a part of the business). And hence this will be treated as a part of the trading operation, it will be taxed by the revenue department.

The second ground talked about the treatment of the commission paid in shares borrowed for the purpose of pledging them. The Court here, in this case, stated it to be a permissible deduction under Section 40(b) of the Act.

The third ground relates to the gratuity that is to be paid to the employees on either retirement or death. The Court here held that if the employer of the organization is under definite obligation with the employee then the deduction of any immediate payment or if any present or future payment is allowed.

The fourth ground talks about the situation where the assessee bought its own issued debentures. The money paid for buying the same was more than the face value. The assessee here claimed deduction of this specific payment. The Court here declined the contention of the assessee and stated that the expenditure is in capital nature and hence deduction cannot be allowed. 

9. Asbestos Cement Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1993) (Bombay High Court) 

Asbestos who is an assessee, in this case, is a UK based cement manufacturing company. Asbestos sold its shares of worth Rupees 22 Lakhs in India; this sale was approved by the government. The transaction which took place in the form of sale of a share was capital in nature which automatically led to capital gain receipts. 

The taxation on this receipt was to be calculated; both the assessee and department assessed the receipt in two very different methods. The assessee first converted the cost of acquisition of shares into pounds at the prevailing rate and also converted the share price into a pound. Then calculated the capital gains from the amounts converted as pounds and then converted the same into Rupees. On the other hand, the department calculated every transaction in the rupee currency and further assessed the amount. The resultant amounts from both methods had huge differences in them. The question under consideration was to find the correct computation of capital gains amount. The assessee, in this case, contended that their place of business was not in India and the accounts were maintained in the United Kingdoms so the computation done by them was absolutely correct. 

Bombay High Court, in this case, gave its decision in favour of the revenue department stating that such method of computation can only be exercised when the transactions are expressed in terms of foreign currency. Further also mentions that the sale and purchase both were regarding Indian currency. So, the computation done by the revenue department was absolutely correct.

10. Baroda Cement & Chemical Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1985) (Gujarat High Court) 

The assessee here in this case because of the breach of contract received compensation from the other party. The assessee contended this receipt to be non-recurring in nature, which further means that the receipt is capital in nature and cannot be taxed. But the department contended it to be wrong and assessed it to be taxable. 

So here, a question was put forth by the assessee stating that whether the damages received from the ‘Breach of Contract’ is chargeable under capital gain?

The High Court, in this case, answered this question in favour of the assessee and the reasoning given by the Court was that to consider a receipt as capital gain there needs to be a transfer whereof some consideration is received by the assessee for extinguishment of rights in a capital asset. The Court further stated that consideration and damages are two very different things and hence should be taxed differently. 

11. CIT vs. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries (1973) (Gujarat High Court) 

The facts of this case state that the assessee was a cement manufacturing company. For the institution of the manufacturing process, the assessee leased a mining ground for quarrying of limestone. Later on, the assessee placed an order for plant and machinery for one Crore. Following that the machinery was later on installed and the manufacture of cement was initiated. There were several expenditures incurred by the assessee by the way of salary, travelling expense, brokerage, bank guarantee, rent, electricity insurance etc. Further, the assessee claimed a deduction for installation of machinery and quarrying of limestone.

The question before the Court was whether this expenditure, depreciation and development rebate for the extraction of limestone from mines can be treated as business expenditure and further can be allowed to be deducted from the income? 

Assessee contended that as these expenses were a part of the business and hence the expenditure should be allowed to be deducted. Also, the extraction of limestone cannot be treated as a separate business. The Court held that: 

(a) procurement of raw materials; 

(b) manufacture of the product; 

(c) sale; 

all the three things constitute a business and any expenditure incurred over the three will be treated as business expenditure.

12. CIT vs. Madras Cement Ltd. (2001) (Madras High Court) 

The facts of this case state that assessee incurred a huge expenditure in installing and commissioning a new cement mill in pursuance of modernization program whereby four existing cement mills were considered outdated by the assessee and owing to that replaced it with new ones. The assessee treated the expenditure as current repairs in his books and for his return on income stating that the installation of new machinery in place of an old one will lead to repair expenses. The Court answered this question in favour of the revenue stating that it does not fall within the scope of Section 31(1) of the Act. And further, there is a limit of a stretch of the imagination and the old machinery was totally discarded so it cannot be considered as repairs in any explanation.

A further question raised in the Court was whether subsidy received should be deducted from the cost of assets for the purpose of allowing depreciation, and via the help of previous decisions by various Courts it was held that no such deductions should be made. Further another question under consideration was whether guarantee commission paid by the assessee as revenue expenditure? This question was again answered in favour of the assessee and hence considered to be revenue expenditure.

13. CIT vs. Madras Cement Ltd. (2002) (Madras High Court) 

The assessee, in this case, was involved in the business of manufacture of cement. The assessee incurred some expenses in lying on a cement surface on the tennis Court on the benefit of the employees, erecting street lights in the housing colonies for the employees. The question which came up, in this case, was whether this will contend as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. The assessee wanted it to be treated as revenue expenditure and revenue department, on the other hand, wanted to treat it as capital expenditure which further shouldn’t be allowed for a deduction for the purpose of calculation of taxation in the required assessment year.

Court gave the decision in favour of the assessee stating that it is not a permanent benefit and further any subsidy or benefit provided to the employees are to be considered as revenue expenditure as it is usually done for the betterment of employees so that their efficiency can increase.

14. Panyam Cements and Minerals Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT (1977) (Andhra Pradesh High Court) 

The facts of this following case state that under Sections 32 and 41 (1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 the assessee i.e. a cement manufacturing company received a certain amount as power concessions on existing rates. The assessee contended that the receipt they received was in the nature of windfall and casual and hence was not taxable. Income Tax Officer (ITO) on the other hand observed that receipt was in nature of rebate from Government towards power tariff and was accessible as revenue receipt. The question raised was whether the amount so received by the assessee was taxable or not?

The Court analyzed the given scenario and held that in pursuance of Government policy to supply electricity at concessional rate amount paid to assessee towards expenditure incurred by him was not casual or windfall receipts. And further, under Section 41(1) of the Act, the requirements were fulfilled for this specific income to be taxable. And hence it was stated that this income is liable to include in the total income of the assessee and hence will be liable to be taxed.

Further another question in front of the Court was whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee for the construction of the bridge can be claimed as a deduction or not? The facts stated that the bridge was constructed for the absolute necessity of the workers. Owing to such facts the Court held the expenses to be necessary for the purpose of business and hence can be allowed to claim deductions for. 

15. CIT vs. Manglam Cement Ltd. (2004) (Rajasthan High Court) 

In this following case, the meaning and scope of entertainment expenditure were widened. Here, in this case, the assessee spent a certain amount of money on gifts, food, beverages etc. The Court here, in this case, considered this expenditure to be entertainment expenditure under Section 37(2)(A) of the Act. Further, the Court stated that such types of expenses shouldn’t be ignored even if there is a contract, a custom followed or is a part of the usage of trade.

16. Bharathi Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2018) (ITAT Hyderabad) 

In the following case, the assessee (Bharati Cement Corp.) was engaged in a business, dealing with the sale and manufacture of cement. For the purpose of taxation, the assessee filed his return on income with the department. The facts clarify that the assessee during the assessment year did not commence the business and has only earned interest on fixed deposits which he filed under the head income from other sources (share premiums) and hence, there was no income from the head income from business or profession. During the assessment proceedings, AO noted that assessee was incorporated as the company with limited liability. He treated the receipt of share premium by the assessee as income under Section 28(iv) of the Act stating that the directors and shareholders hugely benefit out of such investments and further the returns on the same should be taxed properly. On appeal, the Commissioner confirmed the addition made by AO. 

The assessee appealed to the tribunal and contended that the AO was wrong in stating that the investors have not consented before the selling of the shares and further benefitted. And further, the Court stated that the assessee’s income can be held liable for taxation under the head business or profession only when it is well established that the directors and investors have made huge profits out of such investments. And also mentioned that certain benefits do pass down but what needs to be checked is that have they really benefited out of it. The Court here ordered further investigation so as to work upon application of human probabilities and circumstantial evidence for the purpose of the same.

17. Ambuja Cements Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (2019) (ITAT Mumbai) 

In the following case, the facts state that the assessee company is engaged in the sale and manufacture of cement. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income. In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer while verifying the return of income and computation of income filed by the assessee found that the assessee had claimed Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) credit of Rs. 20,12,95,237, pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07. However, while computing tax on book profit under Section 115JB of the Act, the Assessing Officer allowed MAT credit under Section 115JAA of the Act for an amount of Rs.6,99,46,873. The assessee challenged the reduction of MAT credit in an appeal filed before the first appellate authority. The revenue department contended that the MAT credit deducted by the assessee was a carried forward MAT credit. Here the assessee was an amalgamated company and was using the MAT credit of the amalgamating company.

The tribunal here took the view from various different cases and stated that the allowance of MAT credit of an amalgamating company at the hands of the amalgamated company can be done and is legal. And further stated that the assessee was correct in deducting Rs. 20,12,95,237 rupees as MAT credit. And also that any section under the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not specifically disallow the carrying forward and set-off of MAT credit of an amalgamating company.

18. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements vs. Dcit Rg. 3(1) (2018) (ITAT Mumbai) 

This case talks about various deductions which were claimed by the assessee and further stating that it can be allowed by the department or not.

1. Expenditure incurred for the purchase of flowers, sweets etc during Diwali/ Dussehra. AO here disallowed the expenditure claimed, and on the appeal in the tribunal, it was held that the consistency of the Court’s decision will be given priority and hence this expense will be allowed to be deducted by the assessee.
2. Expenditure incurred by the assessee of amount 4.50 Lakhs towards consultancy charges paid for advice on civil construction. This amount was also disallowed by the AO, but again as in the preceding assessment years the expenditure claimed by the assessee has been allowed by the Tribunal, so here again, the expenditure was finally held to be deducted.
3. Expenditure incurred on service charge. This was treated the same as the previous expenses were treated by the Tribunal. 
4. Disallowance of expenditure on employee stock option (ESOP), the Tribunal here stated that the deduction can be claimed only in the year in which the employees have actually exercised the option on the basis of the share price at the relevant time. And further, as the condition was followed by the assessee the deduction was allowed.
5. Disallowance made under Section 14A, for reference materials on record and rival submissions were considered and it was summarized that the disallowance was made on an ad-hoc basis but however after considering the quantum of dividend income earned in the assessment year the disallowance was fair and reasonable. And hence the disallowance was not granted.
6. Interest income and truck hire charges were contended by the assessee to be treated as business income and on the other hand, the AO wanted this particular income to be assessed under income from other sources. The assessee contended that income under question is earnings by temporary deployment of the surplus and utilized funds, out of money borrowed for the purpose of business. The assessee’s contention was accepted here.
7. Disallowance of proportionate deduction on the premium on leasehold land claimed under Section 37(1) of the Act. The Court hereby taking view of the previous judgments came to the reasoning that this was a capital expenditure and the deduction disallowed by the AO was correct.
8. Disallowance of unutilized MODVAT credit under the provisions of Section 145A of the Act. The Court here relied on the Ambuja Cement Ltd. case (ITA no.3359/Mum./ 2005) and answered the question/ ground in the favour of the assessee.
9. Further, the grounds related to community welfare expense, temple expense, prior period expense, mine prospect charges, foreign exchange loss, disallowance of expenses claimed, Gujarat earthquake relief were raised by the revenue department which was partly accepted by the revenue department.

Conclusion

The major goal of the Indian Judiciary is social, political and economic justice to all of its citizens and this justice includes defeating the concept of biases as well. If one takes a look at the basis of the Indian Judiciary, it can be noted that it works on the presumption of innocence i.e. it is better that ten guilty persons go free than one innocent person suffer which means nothing wrong should be done with the people of this nation. 

Under the Income Tax Act, there come various instances where the question of how the calculation of the income tax has been done by the Assessing Officers comes into the picture. The assessee has the authority to challenge the amount of revenue calculated by the officers. Under such circumstances, the precedents given by the Court in various previous decisions turn out to be of great help. The precedents further help in understanding the basis of the law used in the case by the Courts and works as a good academic tool for others. 

Also, the above helps in preventing the biased and wrong assessments by the assessing officers as the precedents act as a rule of law to the others which should be followed strictly. Thus the previous judgments will help the cement manufacturing companies in avoiding wrong assessments and will further save them with the biasness of the Assessing Officers.