C. M. LODHA, C. J. - (1.) THESE are ten connected special appeals under sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, against a common judgment dated August 25, 1978, by a learned Single Judge whereby the learned Judge allowed 10 writ petitions filed by the respondents in these appeals in the matter of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (Act No. 38 of 1961) (hereinafter to be referred to as ' the Act. " ). The learned Judge held that the petitioner respondents (hereinafter to be referred to as "the respondents"), were not liable to pay market fees i. e. , "mandi Shu3ks"on the transactions of sale and purchase of 'vanaspati' or 'hydrogenated oil'. He further held that the respondents shall be entitled to get the refund of the market-fees paid or deposited by them with the Krishi Upaj Mandi.
(2.) THE facts are not in disputs and the short point on which Shri A. K. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellants, has directed his attack is that the learned Judge erred in holding that "vanaspati" or hydrogenated oil do not fall within the meaning of the tera "vanaspati oil" or "groundnut oil". Section 17 of the Act provides that the market committee shall collect market fees from the licencees in the prescribed manner on agricultural Produce bought or sold by them in the market area at such rate as may be specified by the State government by notification in official gazette subject to a maximum of Rs. 1/- per hundred rupees worth of agricultural produce. Section 2 (1) (i) of the Act defines "agricultural produce" as follows,- "2. (1) (i) 'agricultural produce' includes all produce whether of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandary or otherwise as specified in the Schedule. " Section 40 of the Act gives power to the State Government to add to, amend or cancel any of the items of agricultural produce specified in the Schedule. By Notification dated June 23, 1975, published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated June 25, 1975, against item No. 4 of the Schedule, under the head "oil seeds and oil"- "groundnut oil", "vanaspati oil" were included in the Schedule. Thereafter, by a notification dated August 19,1975, issued under sec. 3 of the Act, the State Government declared its intention of regulating the purchase and sale of commodities specified in the said notification, which, however, did not include "ground-nut oil"and 'vanaspati tel" although some other kinds of vegetable oils were included under the general heading "oil seeds and oils". However, by a subsequent Notification dated December 20, 1975, issued under section 3 of the Act, the items "vegetable oil" was included in the notification as a commodity, the sale and purchase of which may be regulated by the State Government. Later on by another Notification dated April 23, 3977, issued under section 40 of the Act, the old Schedule was replaced by an entirely new Schedule and this time the item vegetable oil was altogether excluded from the Schedule. Thus, all oils have been exclulded from the list of commodities included in the Schedule which came into force by Notification dated April 23, 1977. Hence, we are concerned only with the period commencing from December 20, 1975 to April 23, 1977. It appears that there has been a slip in the judgment of the learned Single Judge when he observed that the relevant period is from June 23, 1975 to April 23, 1977. In fact, it should be from December 20, 1975 to April 23, 1977. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that hydrogenated groundnut oil is commonly called "vanaspati" and therefore, while making mention of "groundnut oil", "vanaspati tel" has been mentioned only by way of abundent caution. It is submitted that hydrogenated groundnut oil is nothing but hardened ground-nut oil which is commonly called "vanaspati". "vanaspati oil", argues Shri Mathur, is nothing but "vanaspati". In support of his contention, Shri Mathur has placed reliance on M/s Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. , Kurnool vs. Commercial Taxes Officer, Kurnool (1) The question for consideration before the Supreme Court in that case was whether hydrogenated groundnut oil is groundnut oil within the meaning of rule 18 (2) of the Madras General Sales-tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939. Rule 18 (2) of the said Rules was as follows, - "every such registered manufacturer of ground-nut oil will be entitled to deduction under clause (k) of sub-rule (1) of rule 5 equal to the value of the groundnut and/or kernel purchased by him and convert into the oil and cakes if he has paid the tax to the State on such purchases. " We are not concerned with the provisos and the Explanation to the said rule and therefore, they have not been reproduced. The Tribunal as well as the High Court decided against the allowance of the deduction in respect of the sales of hydrogenated oil while upholding the appellant's case as regards refined oil. In this connection, their Lordships observed as follows in paragraph 9, - "but in the case of hydrogenated oil which is prepared from refined oil by the process of passing hydrogen into heated oil in the presence of a catalyst (usually finely powdered nickel), two atoms of hydrogen are absorbed. A portion of the oleic acid which formed a good part of the content of groundnut oil in its raw state is converted, by the absorption of the hydrogen atoms, into stearic acid and it is this which gives the characteristic appearance as well as the semisolid condition which it attains. In the language of the chemist, an intermolecular or configurational chemical change takes place which results in the hardening of the oil. Though it continues to be the same edible fat that it was before the hardening and its nutritional properties continue to be the same, it has acquired new properties in that the tendency to rancidity is greatly removed, is easier to keep and to transport. Both the Tribunal as well as the learned Judges of the High Court held that the hydrogenated oil (or Vanaspati) ceased to be groundnut oil by reason of the chemical changes which took place which resulted in the acquisition of new properties including the loss of its fluidity. In other words, they hold that Vanaspati or hydrogenated oil was not 'groundnut oil' but a product of groundnut oil, manufactured out of groundnut oil and therefore not entitled to the benefit of the deduction under R. 18 (2)" Thus, the short question, which arose for the decision of the Supreme Court was whether hydrogenated oil (Vanaspati) continues to be oil even after hydrogenation. This question has been answered by their Lordships in the affir-mative. It was observed that, - ". . . . . . . . . . . . Oil is a chemical compound of glycerine with fatty acids, or rather a glyceride of a mixture of fatty acids-principally oleic, linoleic, stearic and palmitis, the proportion of the particular fat varying in the case of the oil from different oil-seeds and it remains a glyceride of fatty acids even after the hardaning process, though the relative proportion of the different types of fatty acids undergoes a slight change. " Consequentiy, it was held that in its essential nature therefore no change has occurred and it remains an oil-glyceride of fatty acids that it was when it issued out of the press. It was also pointed out that hydrogenated oil serves the same purpose as a cooking medium and has identical food value as refined groundnut oil. There is no use to which the groundnut oil can be put for which the hydrogenated oil cannot be used, nor is there any use to which the hydrogenated oil could be put for which the raw oil could not be used. In the result, their Lordships held that hydrogenated oil still continues to be "groundnut oil" notwithstanding the processing which is merely for the purpose of rendering the oil more stable thus improving its keeping qualities for those who desire to consume groundnut oil. The decision of their Lordships in that case, therefore, leaves no room for argument that hydrogenated oil is not groundnut oil. In other words, hydrogenated oil or what is commonly known as "vanaspati" is groundnut oil In R. M. Krishnaswamy Naidu & Sons vs. State of Madras (2) relying upon Tungbhadra Industries Ltd. 's case (supra), learned Judges of the Madras High Court observed that Vanaspati is nothing other than groundnut oil in a more suitable and stable form, the process of manufacture only endowing it with qualities which would resist natural decay and deterioration.
(3.) AT this stage, we may refer to another Supreme Court case relied upon by the learned Single Judge i. e. , Union of India vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. (3 ). The point for decision in that case was whether or not in producing Vanaspati from groundnut oil, a process of manufacture is involved. A question arose before their Lordships whether under the provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Act No. 1 of 1944 when the raw groundnut oil is refined and purified and a product known as refined oil comes into existence at an intermediate stage is in the process of manufacture of Vanaspati, excise duty could be levied on the product of the refined oil. In that case, the petitioners challenged the legality of imposition of excise duty on what was called by the Taxing authorities as manufacture of refined oil from raw oil. The contention of the manufacturers was that the groundnut oil and Til oil purchased by them from the open market were subjected to different processes in order to turn them into Vanaspati. It was claimed that only the vegetable product of Vanaspati was liable to excise duty and that they did not at any stage produce any new product which could be defined as a vegetable non-assential oil upon which excise duty could be levied, thai is to say, since the refined oil was produced in the course of the manufacture of vanaspati the State's attempt to levy excise duty on that refined oil was illegal. Their Lordships pointed out that excise duty is leviable on the manufacture of goods and not on their sale and the circumstance that the substance produced at an intermediate stage was not marketed, would not make any difference to liability to excise duty. They observed that numerous processes, necessary to turn the raw groundnut oil or the Til oil into the vegetable product, had to be undertaken. It was observed, - "the word 'manufacture' used as a verb is generally understood to mean as 'bringing into existance a new substance' and does not mean merely 'to produce some change in a substance however minor in consequence the change may be. " Several observations made by their Lordships clearly indicate that in producing Vanaspati from a mixture of groundnut oil and Til oil, as had been done by the petitioners in those cases, a process of manufacture was indeed involved. Thus the point involved in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. (3) (supra) was not whether Vanaspati is different from groundnut oil but the point for their Lordships' consideration was whether the process of manufacture was involved in producing Vanaspati and it was held that it did involve a process of manufacture. That case, in our humble opinion, does not deal with the point whether Vanaspati is different from Vanaspati oil or hydrogenated oil. The case, which has direct bearing on the point, is Tungbhadra Industries Ltd. Case (1) (supra), which we have referred to above. In this connection, it is pertinent to point out that in the market "vanaspati" is in fact identified with groundnut oil. The learned Single Judge lias also placed reliance on item A. 17. 15, "refined Vegetable Oil" and Item No. A. 19, "vanaspati,, occurring in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, in support of his conclusion. "refined Vegetable Oil" has been defined as any edible vegetable oil which is obtained by expression, neutralised with alkali bleached with absorbent earth and/or activated carbon and deodorised with steam, whereas under item No. A. 19 "vanaspati" has been defined to mean any refined edible vegetable oil or oils, subjected to a process of hydro-genation in any from. Merely because "refined vegetable oil" and "vanaspati" have been put in different items in order to prescribe the standard of their purity, it cannot be said that they are different items and cannot be identified with each other. Besides that. Vanaspati is hydrogenated oil. In support of his view, the learned Judge has further referred to the provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. Vegetable Oil Product Control Order, 1947, and Vegetable Oil Product (Standard of Quality) Order, 1972, to show that in the aforesaid laws, the Legislature has made a distinction between vegetable oils, refined vegetable oils and hydrogenated vegetable oils. However, in face of the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Tungbhadra's case (1) (supra), we are unable to accept the view taken by the learned Judge. Moreover, it would not be permissible to refer to other statutes to find out whether a particular commodity mentioned in the Schedule is an agricultural produce or not. As observed by their Lordships in M/s Raunaq Ram Tara Chand vs. State of Punjab (4), the commodities mentioned in the Schedule are statutorily agricultural produce under section 2 (1) (i) of the Act and it is not possible to entertain the argument that the Court should undertake a judicial scrutiny of these items in order to come to a conclusion whether these are agricultural produce or not. In view of the definition, such an enquiry is out of place. It follows as a necessary corollary that we cannot import the definition or the meaning of a term in one Act into the another, but must interpret it in the light of the definition given in that statute itself. This also disposes of the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents based on Explanation to rule 64 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1963, that for the purpose of this rule, processed agriculture produce shall include all the notified agricultural produce processed in the market but not manufactured produce. Learned counsel for the respondents has also urged that the term "vanaspati" must be given the meaning ascribed to it in common parlance. In support of this contention, he has relied on Commissioner of Sales Tax,madhya Pradesh, Indore vs. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh (5 ). This argument should not detain us inasmuch as we are of the opinion that hydrogenated oil is commonly called Vanaspati in the market. Some people call it "vanaspati" while others call it "vanaspati Ghee" or "vanaspati Tel", but it is in fact the same product. Learned counsel also relied upon Amritsar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. U. S. Naurath (6) wherein it has been held that the conversion of oil into vegetable Ghee amounts to manufacture of vegetable Ghee and for that reason the purchase of groundnut oil for the manufacture of vegetable Ghee is acquisition of goods for use in the manufacture of goods for sale. This case is based on Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. 's case (3) (Supra ). As we have already observed that conversion of oil into Vegetable Ghee or Vegetable oil amounts to manufacture but that has no bearing on the point involved in the case. ;