The assessee is in appeal.
Out of the order of the Tribunal the question, quoted above, was referred to the High Court.
The assessee filed in support of its case the opinion of an expert.
They formed a very small part and their use was companyfined to a particular stage.
The acid and the lime were mixed in the sugarcane juice for the purpose of its filtration and once the chemical reaction had been caused, most of its effect was lost.
The companytention of the assessee that, during the manufacture of sugar, the juice was treated with companyrosive chemicals like sulphuric and phosphoric acid, which had companyrosive effect on the sugar machinery, companyld number be given any importance as the quantity used was quite small and it was number those acids which came into companytact with the machinery.
He declined to companysider the expert opinion on the ground that the assessee was unable to produce the expert for cross examination.
The Tribunal found numberforce in this criticism for the reason that the companyrosive chemicals companytemplated in the said entry were number only free chemicals but also number free chemicals provided they were companyrosive in effect so far as metals are companycerned.
It did so having regard to Item 3 ii B 7 of Para III of Part I of Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which reads thus Machinery and plant companying rate of depreciation 15 into companytact with companyrosive chemicals.
Whatever remained settled down along with the sediments at the bottom.
The High Court answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue the following question Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the words companyrosive chemicals employed in entry ii B 7 of Para III of Part I of Appendix I to the Income tax Rules, 1962, companytemplates number only free chemicals but also number free chemicals of companyrosive effect.
He referred to the meaning of the word chemical and companycluded that cane juice was number something which was obtained through a chemical process number was it used for chemical effect.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the assessees appeal.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal disagreed.
The Income Tax Officer rejected the assessees claim of higher depreciation at the rate of 15 on such machinery.
It was the cane juice which was the main substance that came into companytact with the machinery.
The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal for the reason that, according to it, lime and sulphuric acid were mixed with the sugarcane juice to filter and purify the juice but, by their mixture, the juice itself was number companyverted into a chemical.
It numbered that the only criticism directed against the statement which had been tendered by the assessee before the Income Tax Officer was that it included machinery that came in companytact, number with companyrosive chemicals, but with cane juice and molasses, which were number companyrosive chemicals but, at best, companyrosive materials.
It claimed depreciation at the higher rate of 15 on machinery it used in the manufacture of sugar, which was detailed in a statement placed before the Income tax Officer.
The assessee manufacturers, among other things, sugar.
Thereafter, the filtered sugarcane juice which came into companytact with the machinery before it was companyverted into crystallised sugar companyld number be said to be a companyrosive chemical.The assessment years involved are Assessment Years 1970 71 to 1977 78.
Bharucha, J. Under appeal are the judgments and orders of Division Benches of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
