JUDGMENT
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.
1. The question of law referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is as follows :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see, who is engaged in making photostat copies of documents with aid of xerox machine, is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A in respect of the xerox machine ?”
2. The assessment year is 1984-85.
3. The assessee is a firm engaged in the job work of making xerox copies. Its claim for investment allowance was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. That was subsequently allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, whose order was upheld by the Tribunal.
4. Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the process of duplication does not result in the manufacture of any goods, articles or things and, therefore, the investment allowance under Section 32A cannot be allowed to the assessee. Counsel referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Everest Copiers v. State of Tamil Nadu [1996] 103 STC 360, wherein the court held that the main object of the work undertaken by the operator of a photocopier or xerox machine is not the transfer of the paper upon which the copy is produced. But it is to duplicate or make a xerox copy of the document, which the payer of the price wants duplicated and that what is involved is not a sale of the paper on which the material is duplicated, but is a contract of work or labour.
5. Having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it must be held that the process of duplication by using the xerox machine does not result in the manufacture of any goods, articles or things. The result of the process carried on with the aid of the machine is similar to what is achieved by inserting a carbon between two sheets of paper while typing out a document on the manual typewriter. All that is obtained at the end of the process is a copy of the original, which is inserted into the machine. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.