1. The question involves in these two appeals is, `whether the appellant, a Small Scale Service Business Enterprises (SSSBE), is liable to pay entry tax under J&K Entry Tax on Goods Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as `the Entry Tax Act' in short) for the machinery imported into the state by the appellant'. 2. The brief facts of the cases are that the appellant is running a Diagnostic Centre at Karan Nagar, Srinagar. The appellant imported a CAT Scan model Somatem from Mumbai, which was being transported through vehicle No. HR 37 A- 1495 and the same was detained at Lakhanpur Check post by Commercial Taxes Department and demanded entry tax. After issuance of notice and hearing the appellant, the Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Tax Check Post Lakhanpur vide order dated 26.4.2006 demanded entry tax for the goods imported by the appellant. Thereafter on 14.5.2006 the appellant applied to the Registering Authority, Commercial Taxes, Srinagar for registration of its unit under J&K Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as `the VAT Act' in short ) and under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as `the CST Act' in short). The Unit of the appellant was registered w.e.f. the date of application i.e. 18.4.2006. Again the appellant imported Digital X Ray system, accessories and X ray films and the same were also seized by the Dy. Commissioner Commercial Taxes (V&I) Srinagar. Vide order dated 3.5.2006,it was held by the Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, (V&I)Srinagar, that the appellant is liable to pay entry tax. Being aggrieved by both these orders, the appellant preferred two separate appeals before Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, J&K. Both these appeals were dismissed by learned Commissioner Commercial Taxes, J&K on 24.7.2007 by a common order. Again aggrieved by this order of Ld. Commissioner, the appellant has preferred these two appeals before this Tribunal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Revenue at length. I have also perused the record on the file. 4. Mr. Malik Manzoor Ahmad, Advocate appearing for the appellant, has contended that the appellant is entitled to benefit of exemption from payment of entry tax under SRO 428 because the appellant is registered under `the VAT Act' and under Section 27(4) of `the VAT Act', the effect of registration is given 30 days before the application for registration. 4. Mr. Malik Manzoor Ahmad, Advocate appearing for the appellant, has contended that the appellant is entitled to benefit of exemption from payment of entry tax under SRO 428 because the appellant is registered under `the VAT Act' and under Section 27(4) of `the VAT Act', the effect of registration is given 30 days before the application for registration. It is further argued that running of X Ray and Sonography besides CT Scan is a manufacturing activity. Mr. M.M. Ahmad Advocate, on the other hand, has argued that section 27(4) of `the VAT Act' has no application in the present cases because it is an afterthought and also it is not the normal incidence of taxation under `the VAT Act', and the liability is one time tax under other Act. He has further argued that in first case there was no registration when the machinery was imported. He has further argued that running of diagnostic centre is not a manufacturing activity. 5. In the instant cases, the appellant has sought benefit of exemption from payment of entry tax under notification SRO 428 dated 19th December 2003 in respect of equipments imported by the appellant. This notification has provided incentive to the industrial unit holders by way of exemption from payment of tax leviable under `the Entry Tax Act'. Under this notification plant, machinery, equipment or any consumable goods imported into state by Industrial Unit Holders or the Dealers shall, subject to the conditions specified therein the notification, be exempt from payment of tax under `the Entry Tax Act'. These conditions are as under: i. that such importers are registered under the provisions of J&K General Sales Tax Act 1962. ii. that they are authorized to import such goods from outside the state as per the certificate of registration issued under CST Act 1956/J&K GST Act 1962; and iii. that these goods are not meant for resale in the state. 6. The first condition for grant of benefit of exemption from payment of entry tax under `the Entry Tax Act' under SRO 428 is that the importers are registered under the provisions of J&K GST Act 1962. The unit of appellant was registered w.e.f. 18.4.2006 under `the VAT Act'. that these goods are not meant for resale in the state. 6. The first condition for grant of benefit of exemption from payment of entry tax under `the Entry Tax Act' under SRO 428 is that the importers are registered under the provisions of J&K GST Act 1962. The unit of appellant was registered w.e.f. 18.4.2006 under `the VAT Act'. The first consignment imported by the appellant, which was seized at Check post Lakhanpur, was on 9.4.2006, i.e. before the registration of the unit of appellant by the Registering Authority, while the second consignment was imported after registration of the Unit.. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that under the provisions of section 27(4) of `the VAT Act' , the effect of registration shall be thirty 30 days before the date of registration which has been disputed by the learned counsel for the Revenue. Section 27 of `the VAT Act' reads as under : REGISTRATION. (1) No dealer shall, while being liable to pay tax under this Act, carry on business as a dealer unless he has been registered and possesses a certificate of registration: Provided that a dealer liable to pay tax shall be allowed three months' time from the date from which he is first liable to pay such tax to get himself registered. (2) Every dealer required by sub section (1) to be registered shall make application in this behalf in the prescribed manner to the prescribed authority specifying therein the cases or classes or goods dealt in or manufactured by him. (3) If the said authority is satisfied that the application for registration is in order, it shall, in accordance with such manner or on payment of such fee as may be prescribed grant registration to the application and issue a certificate of registration I in the prescribed from which shall specify the class or classes of goods dealt in or manufactured by him. (4) Where the application for registration is made under this section, the prescribed authority shall grant to the applicant the certificate of registration the date of filing such application. Provided that the prescribed authority shall grant to such dealer the certificate of registration from the date of commencement of his liability to pay tax where the application for registration is made within thirty days of such date. Provided that the prescribed authority shall grant to such dealer the certificate of registration from the date of commencement of his liability to pay tax where the application for registration is made within thirty days of such date. Sub-section (1) clearly lays down that this registration is for carrying on business as a dealer and the certificate of registration shall be granted from the date of filing of the application. Further, proviso to sub section (4) empowers the authority to grant such dealer the certificate of registration from the date of commencement of his liability to pay tax under `the VAT Act', where the application for registration is made within thirty days of such date. The dealer is defined under 2(XI) as under: "dealer" means any person who carried on (Whether regularly or otherwise) the business of selling, purchasing, supplying or distributing the goods, transferring the right to use any goods or supplying by way of or as party of any service, any goods directly or indirectly, for cash or for deferred payment, or for commission, remuneration, other valuable consideration and includes- (i) a factor, broker, commission agent, del credere agent, or any other mercantile agent by whatever name called and whether of the same description as hereinbefore mentioned or not, who carried on the business of selling, purchasing, supplying or distributing goods or not: (ii) notwithstanding any condition to the contrary contained in the agreement with the principal, an auctioneer who carries on the business of selling, purchasing or auctioning the goods belonging to any principal, whether disclosed or not or whether the offer of the intending purchaser is accepted by him or the principal or nominee of the principal; (iii) a club or any association selling or purchasing goods; and (iv) a contractor supplying, selling or purchasing goods. Explanation 1:- Every person who acts as an agent in the State of a dealer residing outside the State and sells, purchases or distgricutes the goods in the State or acts on behalf of such a dealer as - (i) mercantile agent; (ii) an agent for handling of goods or documents or title relating to the goods; or (iii) an agent for the collection or the payment of sale price of goods or as a guarantor for such collection or payment, shall be dealer for the purses of the Act. Explanation II: -- Any Department of the Government which, whether or not in the course of business, sells or buys, supplies or distributes goods, directly or otherwise for cash or for deferred payment or for commission, remuneration other valuable consideration shall, be deemed to be a dealer for the purposes of the Act. Explanation III: -- For purposes of this clause Government includes the Central Government and the Government of any other State or Union Territory. This definition of the dealer clearly defines that the dealer is the person who carries on the business of sales and purchases of goods for cash. While carrying on his business, the dealer is liable to pay tax under `the VAT Act'. In the instant cases the application is not for registration of unit which carries on any business activity but the appellant has imported the equipments and after installation of the same, the appellant would start its business activity. Section 27 of `the VAT Act' is applicable to the normal incidence to tax under `the VAT Act, and is not applicable to the one time tax liability under any other Act. Also the certificate of registration was not granted from the back date, but was from the date of application. Section 27 of `the VAT Act' does not give effect thirty days prior to the application ipso facts unless it is prayed so and order is passed to that effect. Thus the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is this effect cannot be accepted. 8. Also section 27 of `the VAT Act' safe guards the dealers who are liable to pay normal incidence of tax under `the VAT Act' after running their business activities and shall not provided any safeguard to a person from exemption from payment of tax under other Acts in case the required formalities are not fulfilled at that time. To claim exemption under the aforesaid notification, the unit must be registered at the time of import of the goods. The exemption cannot be granted on the basis of registration effected subsequently. 9. The Second condition required for claiming exemption from payment of entry tax under the aforesaid notification is that the importer is authorized to import such goods as per the certificate of registration. The exemption cannot be granted on the basis of registration effected subsequently. 9. The Second condition required for claiming exemption from payment of entry tax under the aforesaid notification is that the importer is authorized to import such goods as per the certificate of registration. By Making endorsement of goods to be imported into the state, the importer gets benefit of confessional rate of CST and also exemption from payment of entry tax. In the instant cases at the time of import of first consignment, there was no authorization. However, before the import of second consignment, there was proper authorization. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that appellant is running a diagnostic centre which is a manufacturing activity and has been duly registered as such by the DIC. Even the Commercial Taxes Department has also authorized registered unit of the appellant and made endorsement of the machinery to be imported by the appellant on registration certificate. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Revenue has stated that the provisional registration granted by the DIC was not proper and as per established norms and procedure for registration and thus the activity of appellant is not a manufacturing activity. The question arises as to whether the activity of the appellant is a manufacturing activity or not. The appellant has imported CT Scan and Digital X Rays for its unit. With these equipments, photographs of internal parts of the body for proper diagnoses and treatment of the patient would be taken or produced. Generally `manufacture' means the process or operation of making goods by hand or by machine from raw material or prepared materials by giving such material new forms, qualities or article. Manufacture does not mean that the original article should loose its identity completely. All that is important is that what is processed is result of process and is a different commodity having its own name, identity and character and use. In the instant case the activity of appellant with these equipments is the result of efforts and gives the result in black and white regarding the internal position of the parts of the body which are helpful for proper and efficient diagnoses. The photographs or graph obtained from these equipments are based on the result of efforts and activities. In the instant case the activity of appellant with these equipments is the result of efforts and gives the result in black and white regarding the internal position of the parts of the body which are helpful for proper and efficient diagnoses. The photographs or graph obtained from these equipments are based on the result of efforts and activities. The installation of these equipments in its diagnostic centre by the appellant was for the purpose of business and production of things. Thus the activity of the appellant is a manufacturing activity. Reliance is placed on the cases, Natvarlal Ambalal Dave V/s Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1997) 225 ITR Page 936 ( Guj): and Commissioner of Income Tax V/S Trinity Hospital reported in (1997) 225 ITR page 178 (Raj). 11. Further Director Industries and Commerce J&K Srinagar, has also issued a circular on 11.7.2007, clarifying on the basis of the decision taken in the Hon'ble Chief Ministers office chamber that the dispute with regard to the definition of the industries and identification of production as to whether it is a manufacturing activity or not, the decision of the Director, Industries and Commerce shall be final and conclusive and shall be binding on all the department of J&K. This circular was issued because departments of Powers and Commercial Taxes, were giving their own definition for such units. In the instant case also the industry department has given provisional registration to the unit of the appellant as SSSBE unit and the registering authority of Commercial Taxes Deptt, also registered the unit of the appellant as such and also made an endorsement of the machinery to be imported by the appellant. Thus I would hold that the activity of the appellant is a manufacturing activity. 12. With these observations, I shall now examine both the cases separately to see as to whether the appellant is entitled to be exempt from payment of entry tax under the aforesaid notification. 13. In appeal No. 167/ST-Trib/ET/07 , the appellant imported CAT scan on 26.4.2006 and at that time the unit of the appellant was not registered under `the VAT Act' and there was no authorization for importing such equipment. The appellant cannot take benefit of registration made subsequently. 13. In appeal No. 167/ST-Trib/ET/07 , the appellant imported CAT scan on 26.4.2006 and at that time the unit of the appellant was not registered under `the VAT Act' and there was no authorization for importing such equipment. The appellant cannot take benefit of registration made subsequently. Thus in this case the conditions specified in notification SRO 428 are not satisfied and as such import by the appellant shall not be exempt from payment of entry tax under `the Entry Tax Act'. Hence the appellant is liable to pay entry tax in this case. 14. In second case i.e. appeal No. 168/ST/Trib/07 in which the learned Dy. Commissioner Commercial Taxes, (V&I) Srinagar, seized the goods of appellant, the appellant has valid registration under `the VAT Act', and also under `the CST Act'. The registering authority at the time of registration has added the words subject to entry tax if liable for items. At the same time the registering authority also entered the machinery, accessories to be imported by the appellant in the registration certificate. Thus he has authorized the appellant to import this machinery. The condition `subject to entry tax if liable for these items' was deleted by the Registering Authority on the application of the appellant vide order dated 5.11.2007. There is no provision in the Act to impose such type of condition on the registration certificate. It is for the appropriate authority to decide as to whether the appellant was liable to pay entry tax under the entry tax or not. An authority is not empowered to impose any condition creating liability while such transaction if exempted from payment of tax under any law or notification. Thus this condition was irrelevant. 15. Since the Unit of the appellant was registered and the appellant was also authorized to import X-Ray system and accessories on the date of import. The appellant is a SSSBE unit, as such all the conditions required for exemption from payment of entry tax are satisfied. Thus the appellant is entitled for exemption from payment of entry tax under notification SRO 428 and is not liable to pay entry tax under `the Entry Tax Act'. 16. The appellant is a SSSBE unit, as such all the conditions required for exemption from payment of entry tax are satisfied. Thus the appellant is entitled for exemption from payment of entry tax under notification SRO 428 and is not liable to pay entry tax under `the Entry Tax Act'. 16. For the reasons stated herein above, I would hold that the appellant is not entitled for grant of exemption under SRO 428 dated 19.12.03 for the equipments imported by the appellant in the case appeal No. 167/ST/Trib/07 and as such is liable to pay entry tax under `the Entry Tax Act'. But the appellant is entitled for exemption from payment of entry Tax under `the Entry Tax Act" under the said notification in case appeal No. 168/ST/Trib/07. Thus the question is answered accordingly. 17. Hence the appeal No. 167/ST/Trib/07 of the appellant is dismissed and appeal No. 168/St/Trib/07 of the appellant is accepted and order of the lower authorities are set aside. Let a copy of this order be placed on both files. The appeal files be consigned to records.