AJIT K. SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) IN this reference under Section 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1981-82, the following question of law has been referred to this court :" Whether, on a proper appreciation of the facts of the case and on a correct interpretation of law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance on generators" ( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, the facts are that the assessee, a limited company was deriving income from beverages. The assessee installed a generator in its factory to supply power to the main plant during the course of failure in the supply of electricity. The assessee claimed investment allowance on the generator. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax disallowed the claim on the ground that the generator at best gave indirect assistance for the manufacturing process during the period of power failure. The assessee did not manufacture or produce any article or thing as envisaged in Section 32a of the Income-tax Act, 1961. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who was of the view that, as per Section 32a of the Income-tax Act, 1961, investment allowance was available to a new machinery or plant installed after March 31, 1976, in any industrial undertaking for the purpose of business of various nature specified in the list of the Eleventh Schedule. Hence, new machinery or plant installed in any industrial undertaking for the purpose of manufacturing or production was eligible for investment allowance under Section 32a of the Act and it was not required that the machinery or plant should itself manufacture but should be used for the purpose of business of manufacture. The generator set was used for the supply of power during the power failure for the purpose of production. The investment allowance was, accordingly, allowable on the said generator. ( 4 ) ON appeal by the Department, the Tribunal maintained the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by observing as under :" 8. After considering the arguments, the cases referred to by the Departmental Representative in 63 ITR 232 (SC) (sic) and 116 ITR 554 ( sic) and the provisions of Section 32a (2) (b) (iii), it is found that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance. After considering the arguments, the cases referred to by the Departmental Representative in 63 ITR 232 (SC) (sic) and 116 ITR 554 ( sic) and the provisions of Section 32a (2) (b) (iii), it is found that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance. The Departmental representative specifically has referred to item No. 5 of the Eleventh Schedule and has indicated that it has been excluded from the purview of the allowance of the investment allowance and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled thereto. Item No. 5 of the Eleventh Schedule was looked into and it was not very clear with reference to the manufacturing process of the assessee. The manufacturing process of the assessee appears to be different from the manufacturing process given in item No. 5. Under the said circumstances, the assessee was entitled to investment allowance and, therefore, the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is maintained. " ( 5 ) AT the hearing before us, our attention has been drawn to a decision of this court in CIT v. Peerless Consultancy Services (Pvt.) Lid. [1990] 186. ITR 609, where it has been held that, because the assessee in that case was an industrial company within the meaning of Section 2 (7) (c) of the Finance Act, 1981, it was entitled to investment allowance in respect of the generator installed by the assessee even though the generation of power is not the business of the assessee. ( 6 ) IN this case, the generator was purchased for the purpose of maintaining the supply of power during the period of the failure of power supply. The assessee claimed that supply of power to the main plant and its maintenance during the course of failure is an integrated part of the process of manufacture of the assessee's commodity, namely, beverages. The argument of the Revenue is that the generator installed gave only indirect assistance for the manufacturing process during the period of power failure and, therefore, cannot be called an integral part of the manufacturing process. Moreover, the Revenue also opposed the conclusion of the Tribunal on the ground that the assessee's product being one referred to by item No. 5 of the Eleventh Schedule, the assessee should not have been allowed any investment allowance at all. Moreover, the Revenue also opposed the conclusion of the Tribunal on the ground that the assessee's product being one referred to by item No. 5 of the Eleventh Schedule, the assessee should not have been allowed any investment allowance at all. ( 7 ) THE Eleventh Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, lists out the articles or things of which the manufacture or production is excluded from the scope of the investment allowance. Thus, if the assessee's case falls under item No. 5 of the said Schedule, the assessee's claim for investment allowance is not admissible. Thus, the Revenue has raised a more fundamental question as to whether the assessee's product is at all eligible for investment allowance. ( 8 ) ITEM No. 5 of the Eleventh Schedule reads as follows ; " Aerated waters in the manufacture of which blended flavouring concentrates in any form are used. " ( 9 ) IT, however, appears that the assessee's learned counsel asserted before the Tribunal that the assessee was not manufacturing " aerated waters " in which blended flavouring concentrates were used. It is manufacturing aerated waters out of synthetics. This indicates that the assessee's manu- facturing process involved use of synthetic elements. An Explanation below item No. 5 was inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, with effect from 1988 which clarified what the Legislature meant by the expression " blended flavouring concentrates ". ( 10 ) ACCORDING to that Explanation, the concentrates referred to "shall include, and shall be deemed always to have included, synthetic essences in any form. " Before the Tribunal, as is evident from the statement of fact, the assessee conceded that the assessee is manufacturing aerated waters out of synthetics. The Tribunal should have obtained further clarification of the cryptic statement made on behalf of the assessee that the assessee manufactures its products out of synthetics. The Explanation makes it clear that use of synthetic essences shall attract the Schedule which is exclusionary in nature. The Tribunal appears to have given the assessee the benefit of doubt merely holding that it was not clear to the Tribunal as to whether the manufacturing process of the assessee was the process attracting item No. 5 of the Schedule. The Explanation makes it clear that use of synthetic essences shall attract the Schedule which is exclusionary in nature. The Tribunal appears to have given the assessee the benefit of doubt merely holding that it was not clear to the Tribunal as to whether the manufacturing process of the assessee was the process attracting item No. 5 of the Schedule. There is a strong presumption that the assessee's product was a product referred to in item No. 5 of the Schedule because of the admission on the part of the assessee that the aerated waters were manufactured out of synthetics. " Manufacture of aerated waters out of synthetics " raises a natural presumption that synthetic essence goes into the manufacturing of the aerated waters. The Tribunal could have ascertained this factual aspect of the matter with some more probing into the exact nature of the assessee's product. It is rather at a premature stage that the Tribunal came to the finding that the manufacturing process of the assessee appears to be different from the manufacturing process referred to in item No. 5. The Tribunal has not addressed itself to the question. Such an enquiry was clearly indicated by the assessee's statement that the assessee is manufacturing aerated waters out of synthetics. Therefore, if, by the statement, the assessee meant that it was using synthetic essences, the assessee would go out of the ambit of Section 32a at the very threshold. The question whether generator was an integrated part of the process of manufacture would become redundant, We, therefore, remand the case to the Tribunal to go into the nature of the assessee's product to ascertain whether by " manufacture out of synthetics" means that the product involved the use of synthetic essences. ( 11 ) THE Explanation below item No. 5, though inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, with effect from April 1, 1988, has to be taken to be only clarificatory in nature and should be referable for the purpose of resolving any doubt arising over the moaning and import of iicm No. 5 in the Eleventh Schedule. ( 12 ) IN the circumstances stated, we decline to answer the question and remand the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to ascertain whether the assessee's case attracts item No. 5 of the Eleventh Schedule. There will be no order as to costs.