BHARATI SAPRU,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the State Shri Nimai Das and Shri Bharat Ji Agarwal assisted by Shri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the assesses.
(2.) THIS revision has been filed by the State for the assessment year 1998-99 against the order of the Tribunal dated 20.12.04. The question of law referred to is as hereunder: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified to hold that blending and packing of tea is not manufacturing? (ii) Whether the order of the Tribunal is correct in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chogala and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1981 U.P.T.C. 702?
(3.) THE assessee was doing blending and packaging of tea. The product was purchased by the assessee and taxes were also paid on it. The product, which emerges after the blending done by the assessee, also remains tea. Thus, there is no dispute that the tea remains tea, which is the same product and the commercial identity of the product is also the same. I n view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. M/s. Lal Kunwa Stone Crusher Pvt. Ltd. Etc., 2000 U.P.T.C. 463 and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mahalaxmi Stores, 2003 U.P.T.C. 453 wherein the Apex Court has relied on its earlier judgment in the case of C.S.T. v. Lal Kunwa Stone Crusher Pvt. Ltd. etc. and has discussed the provisions of Section 2(e-1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act and has explained the word 'Manufacture' and has come to the conclusion that what is relevant is that the result of a manufacture must be in the emergence of a new commercial commodity. It helps in every case of processing, producing, making, finishing, extracting, altering, ornamenting, finishing or otherwise processing, treating or adapting of any goods. It is not necessary that it would amount to manufacture because the nature of the activity does not result in the emergence of a new commercial commodity. Therefore, in order to come to the conclusion that an activity is a case of manufacture, the goods must have a new commercial identify. 6. Learned counsel for the assessee has also relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Nainital Dugdh Utpadan Sahkari Sangh Ltd., 2001 UPTC 328 wherein also this Court has explained the provisions of Section 2(e-1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act and has come to the conclusion that where the goods remained the same, which are identifiable under the Act as the same commodity, it would not amount to manufacture. 7. In view of the above decisions, I am of the view that unbranded tea made from blending of tea also does not result in the manufacture of a new commercial commodity and it remains tea. 8. The question is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. 9. The revision is dismissed.;