Judgment :- The assessee is the appellant. The assessee purchases M.S. scraps and out of the scraps the assessee manufactures washers and sold the remnants. The scrap sold by the assessee was not in the same form in which it was purchased. The remnants sold by the assess was altogether a new marketable commodity, as the scraps purchased by the assessee has lost its identity after the process of manufacturing washers. Hence, according to the assessing officer what was purchased and sold by the assessee after the process of manufacturing was not the same commodity eligible for exemption. However, on appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner considered that what was purchased by the assessee as scrap was sold as such by the assessee and, therefore, what was sold by the assessee is not a new product. Therefore, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the sale value of the scrap is exempted. However, the Joint Commissioner came to the conclusion that exemption granted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the sale turnover of remnants is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and hence, by exercising his jurisdiction under section 34 the interest of Revenue and hence, by exercising his jurisdiction under section34 of the Act, the Joint Commissioner, brought to tax the sale turnover of remnants. It is against that order the present appeal has been preferred by the assessee. 2. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that what was purchased by the assessee is only a scrap. In the scrap, the assessee is making holes for the purpose of manufacturing washers and used to sell the remnants, in the market. When the scrap was originally purchased by the assessee, it was subjected to tax and, therefore, scrap sold by the assessee cannot be taxed once again. Learned counsel further submitted that in the scrap, after the purchase by the assess, holes were made and after that the remnants would not become a different end-product so as to attract the tax once again. It was pleaded that the Joint Commissioner was not correct in taxing the sale turnover of remnants. We have also heard the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) who supported the order passed by the Joint Commissioner. 3. It remains to be seen that the assessee was purchasing the M.S. scrap and manufacturing washers out of the scrap and sold the remnants. We have also heard the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) who supported the order passed by the Joint Commissioner. 3. It remains to be seen that the assessee was purchasing the M.S. scrap and manufacturing washers out of the scrap and sold the remnants. The sale turnover of washers was brought to tax. According to the assessee, the sale turnover of the remnants cannot be subjected to tax since the scrap sold by the assessee is not a different one from the scrap purchased by it. Our attention was drawn to a decision of this Court reported in the case of Lakshmi Industries v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-VI, Madurai 1990 (77) STC 291 . According to the facts arisen in this case the scraps were raw materials that were purchased by the petitioner for the manufacture of the shaped and finished materials and during process of moulding and manufacturing the shaped and finished products there remain some scraps. On these facts this Court held that these scraps cannot be the subject-matter of another taxation as second sale, because, already at the time of purchase of raw materials (scrap), it has suffered tax. The Joint Commissioner relied upon a decision reported in the case of Agra Metal Perforators v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow 1981 (48) STC 378 (All.) wherein it was held that: "As a result of perforation of iron sheets a different commercial commodity comes into existence and since perforated iron sheet is not covered by the categories mentioned in section14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as amended by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1972, it could not be treated as iron and steel but had to be treated as an unclassified item for the purposes of assessment under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948." But the facts arising in the present case are different. The assessee has not purchased any iron sheet. But the assess purchased only M.S. scrap. Therefore, in the present case what was purchased as a scrap is sold as scrap with more holes in it. The remnant would not be useful for any commercial purpose. Therefore, it cannot be considered as an end-product coming out of the manufacturing activity. The assessee has not purchased any iron sheet. But the assess purchased only M.S. scrap. Therefore, in the present case what was purchased as a scrap is sold as scrap with more holes in it. The remnant would not be useful for any commercial purpose. Therefore, it cannot be considered as an end-product coming out of the manufacturing activity. In that view of the matter, on considering the facts in this case, we hold that the Joint Commissioner was not correct in coming to the conclusion that the sale turnover of remnants is amenable to tax. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner and allow this appeal. However, there will be no order as to costs.