Case Name: RAMAC EXPLOSIVES, INC., RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT, AND NEW JERSEY CRUSHED STONE ASSOCIATION, INC., INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT, v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION, APPELLANT
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1974-05-07
Citations: 64 N.J. 551
Docket Number: 
Parties: RAMAC EXPLOSIVES, INC., RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT, AND NEW JERSEY CRUSHED STONE ASSOCIATION, INC., INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT, v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION, APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 64
Pages: 551–555

Head Matter:
RAMAC EXPLOSIVES, INC., RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT, AND NEW JERSEY CRUSHED STONE ASSOCIATION, INC., INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT, v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION, APPELLANT.
Argued March 4, 1974
Decided May 7, 1974.
Mr. Herbert K. Glickman, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant {Mr. William F. Hyland, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney).
Mr. Morris M. Schnitzer argued the cause for intervenorrespondent {Messrs. Schnitzer <& Schnitzer, attorneys).
Mr. Thomas R. Curtin argued the cause for respondent {Messrs. Lafferty, Rowe, McMahon, McKeon & Weigel, attorneys) .

Opinion:
Pee Curiam.
We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons set forth in its opinion reported in 125 N. J. Super. 154 (1973) except that we withhold our approval of that part of the opinion which states that the pattern of the New Jersey Sales and Use Tax Act (N. J. S. A. 54:32B-1, et seq.) "is to tax only the end product of a process." This statement may be too broadly put and in any event was unnecessary to the court's conclusion.
Affirmed.