Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Rochester
50 CLR 225(Decision by: Dixon J)
Between: Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) - Plaintiff
And: Rochester - Defendant
Judges:
Rich J
Starke J
Dixon JEvatt J
McTiernan J
Judgment date: 7 June 1934
Melbourne
Decision by:
Dixon J
I agree. I think that in the interpretation of these very difficult provisions there is no safe guide but the common use of English terms. To attempt some logical analysis of the conceptions of manufacture and of production and to apply the analysis to any process or operation that appears to possess the attributes found to constitute these conceptions, although it would not ordinarily be described by the words "manufacture" or "production," must lead to results which do not represent the true interpretation of the Act. It may be difficult to distinguish one process by which firings are constructed, obtained, prepared, or altered in condition another, but if we follow the method laid down in Adams v. Rau [F1] and Irving v. Munro & Sons Ltd. [F2] and simply apply the terms used in the Act as they are ordinarily applied in English speech, I think that it is inevitable that this demurrer should be allowed. It seems to me an odd and inappropriate use of terms to describe cooked fish as either produced or manufactured. In the same way, I think the use of oil or grease and condiments in cooking fish cannot be described properly as a "combination of parts or ingredients" producing "an article or substance commercially distinct from those parts or ingredients" within the new definition of "manufacture."