Heald,
J:—We
are
all
of
the
opinion
that
the
learned
trial
judge
correctly
concluded
that
the
appellant’s
antiknock
compound
cannot
be
considered
to
be
a
“petroleum
product’’
as
that
term
is
used
in
paragraph
83(A)(3)(a)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act,
RSC
1952,
c
48.
In
our
view
he
was
correct
in
stating
that
the
common
understanding
of
those
words
as
used
in
the
statute
require
that
the
product
be
derived
from
petroleum.
We
also
agree
with
his
application
of
that
definition
to
the
facts
of
this
case
which
resulted
in
his
conclusion
that
because
of
the
addition
of
the
various
substances
foreign
to
petroleum
and
because
of
the
extensive
chemical
processes
to
which
the
various
elements
are
subjected
in
the
process
of
producing
the
antiknock
compound,
that
finished
product,
cannot,
in
ordinary
parlance,
be
considered
to
be
a
“petroleum
product’’
within
the
meaning
of
paragraph
83A(3)(a)
referred
to
supra.
For
these
reasons
the
appeal
is
dismissed
with
costs.
Email this Content