# TRAVANCORE TEA ESTATES CO. LTD v. STATE OF KERALA

- **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 755
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-10-11
- **Case number:** ; Civil Appeal No. 1698 of 1971
- **Bench:** H. R. Khanna, Jaswant Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/travancore-tea-estates-co-ltd-v-state-of-kerala-6965
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

755
Cewral Sales Tax Act (74 of' 1956) s. 8(3)(b) and Centml Sales Tax
'(Rei;istraiion and Turnover) Rules, 1957, r. 13-Goods used in the manufacture or p1-ocessing of goods for sale-Scope-Fertilisers used for
i;rowi11c
lta
,plants, if could be included in goodJ used in the· manufacture of tea for sale.
A
B
Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, deals with rates of tax on
C
sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Section 8 ( 1 )(b) prpvides
·that every dealer, who in the course of inter-State trade or commerce sells to ~
registered dealer goods of the description referred to in sub-s. (3) shall be liable
.ro pay tax at 3% of his turnover. Section 8(3) (b) refers, imer alia to good~
'()f the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration of the registered
•dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for re-sale by him, or subject to
•any rules made by the Central Government in this behalf,. for use by him in the
manufacture or processing of goods for sale. Rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax
(Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, framed under the Act, provides that
D
the goods referred to in s. 8 ( 3 )(b) which a registered dealer may purchase
shall be goods intended for use by him inter alia as raw materials and proces~-
ing materials in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale.
The appellant owned tea estates in the respondent-State and was also maintaining factories for the manufacture of tea.
It prayed for inclusion in its
Certificate of registration, (I ) fertilisers,
chemicals,
weedicides,
insecticides,
fungicides and pesticides for use in tea cultivation; and
(2)
weighing
and
measuring and packing equipments for use in tea estates.
The Department
refused to include them and the Tribunal and the High Court confirmed the
orders.
Jn appeal to this Court it was contended that, (1) cultivation and the growing of tea leaves was so integrally'- connected with the manufacture of tea that
it could be taken to be a part of the process of manufacturing tea, and since
fertilisers etc. were needed for tea cultivation, the same should be held to be·
intended for use in the manufacture or processing of tea for sale; and (2) since
weighing equipment used in the factories had been included in the
certificate,
the weighing e.quipment used for the purpose of cultivation should similarly be
included.
Dismissing the appeal,
E
F
HELD : ( 1) The goods in item (1) are intended for use not in the manufacturing process in respect of tea meant for sale but are only needed for the
cultivation and growth of tea plants and leaves. There is no direct relationship
between the use of fertilisers etc. and the manufacturing process and hence, they
G
were rightly not included in the registration certificate. [761 G]
(a) Cultivation and growth of tea plants result in the production of raw
material in the form of green tea leaves which are ultimately processed into
tea meant for sale.
But such cultivation and growth are, in the very nature of
things, prior to the manufacturing process and do not answer to the description
-Of manufacture .and processing of tea meant for sale.
There is a vital difference
.oetween an agricult11ral operation and a manufacturing process. What is nced-
~d for use purely in an agricultural operation cannot be held fo be required for
H
!lse in a. manufacturing process. [762 DJ
(b) The fact that the time Jag between the plucking of tea leaves and their
t>eing subjected to the manufacturing process is very little would not detract
B
c
756
SUPREl\fE COURT REPORTS
[ 1977] 1 S.C.R.
from the conclusion that thC cultivation and growth of tea
plants is distinct
and separate from the manufacturing process. [761 C]
(c) Rule 24 of the IncOroo Tax Rules. _1922, and c. 8 of the Incon1c Tax
ltul~s. 1962, p~escribe the formula \\o·hich should be adopted for apportioning
the mcome realise~ as a result of tho sale of tea after it is gro,vn and subj~ctcd
to the ma.nufactunng process in tho factory, thus re

## Text

TRAVANCORE TEA ESTATES CO. LTD.
v.
STATE OF KERALA
October 11, 1976
[H. R. KHANNA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.J
755
Cewral Sales Tax Act (74 of' 1956) s. 8(3)(b) and Centml Sales Tax
'(Rei;istraiion and Turnover) Rules, 1957, r. 13-Goods used in the manufacture or p1-ocessing of goods for sale-Scope-Fertilisers used for
i;rowi11c
lta
,plants, if could be included in goodJ used in the· manufacture of tea for sale.
A
B
Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, deals with rates of tax on
C
sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Section 8 ( 1 )(b) prpvides
·that every dealer, who in the course of inter-State trade or commerce sells to ~
registered dealer goods of the description referred to in sub-s. (3) shall be liable
.ro pay tax at 3% of his turnover. Section 8(3) (b) refers, imer alia to good~
'()f the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration of the registered
•dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for re-sale by him, or subject to
•any rules made by the Central Government in this behalf,. for use by him in the
manufacture or processing of goods for sale. Rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax
(Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, framed under the Act, provides that
D
the goods referred to in s. 8 ( 3 )(b) which a registered dealer may purchase
shall be goods intended for use by him inter alia as raw materials and proces~-
ing materials in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale.
The appellant owned tea estates in the respondent-State and was also maintaining factories for the manufacture of tea.
It prayed for inclusion in its
Certificate of registration, (I ) fertilisers,
chemicals,
weedicides,
insecticides,
fungicides and pesticides for use in tea cultivation; and
(2)
weighing
and
measuring and packing equipments for use in tea estates.
The Department
refused to include them and the Tribunal and the High Court confirmed the
orders.
Jn appeal to this Court it was contended that, (1) cultivation and the growing of tea leaves was so integrally'- connected with the manufacture of tea that
it could be taken to be a part of the process of manufacturing tea, and since
fertilisers etc. were needed for tea cultivation, the same should be held to be·
intended for use in the manufacture or processing of tea for sale; and (2) since
weighing equipment used in the factories had been included in the
certificate,
the weighing e.quipment used for the purpose of cultivation should similarly be
included.
Dismissing the appeal,
E
F
HELD : ( 1) The goods in item (1) are intended for use not in the manufacturing process in respect of tea meant for sale but are only needed for the
cultivation and growth of tea plants and leaves. There is no direct relationship
between the use of fertilisers etc. and the manufacturing process and hence, they
G
were rightly not included in the registration certificate. [761 G]
(a) Cultivation and growth of tea plants result in the production of raw
material in the form of green tea leaves which are ultimately processed into
tea meant for sale.
But such cultivation and growth are, in the very nature of
things, prior to the manufacturing process and do not answer to the description
-Of manufacture .and processing of tea meant for sale.
There is a vital difference
.oetween an agricult11ral operation and a manufacturing process. What is nced-
~d for use purely in an agricultural operation cannot be held fo be required for
H
!lse in a. manufacturing process. [762 DJ
(b) The fact that the time Jag between the plucking of tea leaves and their
t>eing subjected to the manufacturing process is very little would not detract
B
c
756
SUPREl\fE COURT REPORTS
[ 1977] 1 S.C.R.
from the conclusion that thC cultivation and growth of tea
plants is distinct
and separate from the manufacturing process. [761 C]
(c) Rule 24 of the IncOroo Tax Rules. _1922, and c. 8 of the Incon1c Tax
ltul~s. 1962, p~escribe the formula \\o·hich should be adopted for apportioning
the mcome realise~ as a result of tho sale of tea after it is gro,vn and subj~ctcd
to the ma.nufactunng process in tho factory, thus recognisin('T the diffcrcnco betflfCCU tho a.uicultural .income which U yielded in the form or'~ green leaves purely
by .tb.o _land over vth1ch tea plants are grown. and tho non-agricultural incon1e
which. is the result of subjecting: the green leaves, plucked to a partku!ar manufactunn: process. [761 E]
(2) The same reasoning holds goOO in respect of weighing machines uo;cd~
•ot in tho factories but, in the tea fields. [762 E]
.
.
I. K. Cotton Spinnin~ &. Weavinl: Mills Co. Ltd. v. ·The Sales Tax Officer
16 STC 56J. and Indian Copper Corporation Ltd. v.
Co1n111isrion
of Co1nmercial Taxes 16 STC 259 followed.
Tea Estate India (P) Lt<l. v. Conuni.nioncr of /11con1e·tax 103
ITH.
785
referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ; Civil Appeal No. 1698 of 1971.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
o
8-.1,-1971 of the Kerala High Court in T. R. C. No. 46/69j.
S. T. Desai, A.G. Meneses, Markos Vellapi/ly and K. J. John, for
lhe Appellant.
'
K. T. Harindrd Nath and K. M. K. Nair for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
,
t
KHANNA, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment
,
of the Kerala Hight Court dismissing revision petition of the petitioner
again•t tho order in appeal of the Appellate Tribunal whereby the
\_
Tribunal refused to include certai.1 items in the sales tax registration
'·
F
certficate of the appellant.
·
G
II
The appellant, Tmvancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd., is a company
incorporated in England\ having its registered office in London.
The
appellant carries on the business of tea planting iri India at Vandiperiyar in Peermade Taluk it\ Kerala State.
Eight tea estates are
owned by tho appellant in Peennado
T'.'lu~. To
manufactur~
!e~
:;:own in those estates, the appellant mamtams sep~rate tea factories
in each of those estates.
On an application made by the nppcU,rnt
for registration under. tho Central Sale~ Tax Act,
1956 (Act 7~ .or
1956) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the sales tax authonttes
::ranted registration certifica~ to the app:llant on Janua~y 9, 19~3.
Aggrieved by the non-inclusion of certatn items of goods m the re~is
tration certificate1 tho appellant filed writ petition in the Keral'.1- High
Court: The High Court directed the Sales Tax Officer to decide. the
-. question regarding the inclusion of items in tho light of the decisions
of this Court in J. K. Cotton Spinning&: Weaving Mills Co. Ltd.' v:
TRAVANCORE TEA ESTATES v. KERALA (Khanna, J.)
75 7
The Sales Tax Officer (,) and Indian
Copper 'Corporation Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.(')
The Sales Tax Officer thereafter allowed the inclusion of some of the items of goods asked
lor
by the· appell~nt in the registration certificate but refused to include
certain other goods in that certificate.
The appella1:1t _thereupon preferred appeal before the Appellate Assistant Comm1ss1oner of Sales
Tax, Kottayam, who partly allowed the appeal. by directing. f~rther
inclusion of certain items.
The Appellate Assistant Com~1ss1011~r,,
however, declined to include the following items in the certificate 111
respect of which prayer had been made by the appellant :
"1.° Fertilisers, chemicals, weedicidei, insecticides, fungicides
and pesticides for use in tea cultivaton .:
2. Cement and other building materials for installing and
housing tea machinery and equipments.:
3. Building materials, iron and
hose-pipes, sanitary fittings for use in estates and estate factories ;
4. Weighing and measuring and packing equipments for
use in tea estates ; and
5. All other articles and things for use in manufacture and
processing of sale of tea." .
The appellant then took the matter in further appeal
before
the
Appellate Tribunal and prayed for the inclusion in the certificate of
the above mentioned items.
The Appellate Tribunal _did not accept
the prayer of the appellant and dismissed the appeal.
Revision
petition was thereupon filed by the appellant before the Kerala High
Court against the order of the Tribunal.
fn appeal before the High Court it was stated on behalf of die
appellant in respect of: the first item relating to fertilisers, chemicals,
weedicides and insecticides, that they were used for cultivation of tea
leaves.
The contention of the appellant was that the growing a::d
manufacturing of tea constituted one integrated process and therefore
the items of goods required for growing tea should be deemed to be
goods intended for use in the manufacture of tea within the meaning
of section 8 (3) (b) of the Act.
This contention
had
also
been
advanced by the appellant earlier before the Tribunal but the Tribunal rejected this contection as in its view "the legislature has not
included production by agriculture as one of the operations for which
:oods can be purchased under section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act".
The Tribunal further held that merely because the agricultural, proces~
of the company is connected with the process of manufacture, production of tea did not form part of the manufacture and processing of
tea.
The High Court disagreed with this reasoning of the Tribuual
and observed that/ the expr~sion "in the manufacture of goods" in
3ection 8 ( 3) (b) of the Act normally encompasses the entire process
carried ort by the dealer of converting the raw material into finished
~oods. lu the opinion of the High Court, the growing of .tea leaves
(I) 16 S.T.C. 563.
(2) 16 S.T.C. 259.
A
D
E
•
F
G
H
c
D
•
. }
·G
H
758
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
was so integrally connected with the manufacture of tea that it could
rea~on~bly be taken as a part of the process of manufacturing tea.
This crrcumst~nce, however, in the opinion of the High Court, by itself
was. not suJ:Iic1ent to make the goods eligible for inclusio,1 in the registrat10n certlficate.
The High Court accordingly observed :
"Under rule 13 read with section 8 (3) (b) the use of the
goods in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale will
not be a sufficient ground for inclusion in the certificate.
The further requirement is that the goods must be for use
as raw materials or processing materials or machinery, plant,
equipment, tools, stores, spare parts,
accessories, fuel or
lubricants.
The first item, namely, fertilisers, chemicals,
insecticides, etc. in our opinion cannot fall within the· category of a raw material or processing material or machinery
etc.
The learned counsel for the company sought to contend that fertilisers, chemicals etc.
would come within the
category of stores mentioned in section 8 ( 3) ( b) and that
as such it is eligible for specification in the certificate. We
are unable to agree with this submission.
The word 'stores'
in the context in which it appears in rule 13 has to be necessarily goods inte1,1ded for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale and it is not possible to hold that
fertilisers, chemicals, weedicides, insecticides etc. can come
within this category.
They are not in any
way directly
connected with the manufacturing or processing of tea.
As
pointed out earlier, the expression 'in the manufacture' can
tab within its compass only processes which are directly
relilted to the actual production.
As such the claim for
inclusion of this item in the Sales
Tax Registration Certificate catinot be supported."
The pn,1yer of the appellant regarding items (2), (3) and (4) was also
disallowed in the light of the observations of this Court in the case
of J. K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. (supra). Item No .
( 5) , in the opinion of the High Court, was too vague and indefinite
to deserve inclusion in the certificate.
In the result the
revision
petition was dismissed.
Before dealing with the contentions advanced, it may be useful to
refer to the relevant provisions.
Section 7 of the Act makes provision
for registration of dealers.
Section 8 of the Act deals with rates of
tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Clause
(b) of sub-section ( 1) of that section provides that every deaJe:, who
in the course of inter-State trade or commerce sells to a registered
dealer other than the Government goods of the description referred to
in sub-section (3) shall be liable to pay tax under this Act which
shall be 3 per cent, of his turnover.
The percentage before July 1,
1966 was two.
Sub-section 3 (b) reads as under :
"(3) The goods referred to in clause
(b) of sub-section
(1)- -
J
'
TRAVANCORE TEA ESTATES v. KERALA (Khanna, J.)
759
(b) are goods of the class or classes specified in th~ certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasmg the
goods as being intended for re-sale by him or subject to any
rules made by the Central Government in this behalf, for use
by him in the manufacture or processing of goods for sal~ or
in mining or in the generation or distribution of electncty
or aay other form of power;"
B.
The Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 have
been framed by the Central Government.
Rule 13 of the rules reads as under :
•
"13. The goods referred to in clause (b) of sub-secton (3)
af 11~ton 8 which a registered dealer may purchase, shall
be goods intended for use by him as raw materials, processing materials,
machinery,
plant,
equipment,
tools,
stores, spare parts, accessories, fuel or lubricants, in the
manufacture or processing of goods for sale, or in mining,
or in the generation of electricity or any other
form of
power."
The question with which we are concerned in this appeal is whether the items of goods in respect of which prayer of the appellant for
being included in the. registration certificate was refused, answer to
the description of goods as given in the above rule.
Mr. Desai
on
behalf of the appellant has not pressed the case of the appellant in
respect of item No. (5) which was found by the High Court to be
vague and indefinite.
He has also not made any submissions in
respect of items (2) and (3) relating to cement and building materials.
The main contention of Mr. Desai has related to item No. (1) pertaining to fertilisers, chemicals, weedicides, insecticides,
fungicide&
and pesticides for use in tea cultivation.
According to the learned
counsel, cultivation and the growing of tea leaves was so integrally
connected with the manufacture o( tea that it could be taken to be a
part of the process of manufacturing tea.
As fertilisers and other
goods mentioned in item ( 1) were needed for tea clutivation, the
same should, according to the learned counsel, be held to be intended
for use in the manufacture or processing of tea for sale.
Regarding
item ( 4), the case of the appellant is that though weighing equipment
used in the factories has been allowed to be included in the certificate,
the weighing equipment used for the purpose of cultivation has not
oeen included in the certificate.
The weighing equipment to be used
for cultivation should also, it is urged, be included in the certificate.
The above contentions have been controverted by Mr. Narendra
Nath, and he has urged that neither the goods mentioned in item No.
(I) nor the weighing equipment needed for cultivation are directly
connected with the process of manufacturing tea.
After giving the matter our earnest consideration, we are of the
view that the contention of Mr. Narendra Nath is well-founded.
c
E.
F
G;
H:
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
760
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977) 1 S.C.R.
Rule 13 has been the subject matter of two decisions of this Court
In the case of Indian Copper Corporation (supra), the assessee was a
dealer engaged both in mining operations of copper and iron ore and
the manufacturing of finished products from the ore for sale.
This
Court held that the two processes being inter-dependent, it would !,c
impossible to exclude vehicles which are used for removing from the
place where the mining operations were concluded to the factory where
the manufacturing process started,
from the registration certificate.
The expression "goods intended for use i,,, the manufacturing or processing of goods for sale" was held to include such vehicles as were
intended to be used for removal of processed goods from the factory
to the place of storage. The mere fact that there is a statutofy obligation imposed upon the owner of the factory or the mine to maintain
hospital facilities would not, in the opinion of this Court, SJJpply
a
connection between the goods and the manufacturing or processing of
goods or the mining operations s.o as to make them goods intended
for use in those operations.
The expression "intended to be used''.
it was further held, cannot be equated with "likely to facilitate" the
conduct of the business of manufacturing or of processing goods or
of mining.
In J. K. Cotton Spinning & WeC1ving lVlilis Co. Ltd. (supra)
the
appellant manufactured for sale cotton textiles, tiles and other commodities.
Certain items of goods in the certificate of registration of
the appellant were deleted by the sales tax authorities on the ground
that they had been earlier erroneously
included in
the certificate.
This Court in that context dealt with the scope and ambit of section
8(3) (b) of the Act read with rule 13.
It was held that the expression
"in the manufacture of goods" in section 8(3) (b)
should normally
encompass the entire process carried on by the dealer of converting
raw materials into finished good~. Where any particular process is
so integrally connected with the ultimate production of goods that, hut
for that process, manufacture or processing of goods would be commercially inexpedient, goods required in that process would fall within
the expression "in the manufacture of goods."
It was further held
that the process of designing might be distinct from the actual process
of turning out finished goods.
But there was no warrant for limiting the meaning of the expression "in the manufacture of goods" to the
process of production of goods only.
The expression "in the manufacture" was held to take in within its compass all processes which
are directly related to the actual production.
Drawing and photographic materials directly related to the actual production of goods
were held to be goods intended for use "in the manufacture of goods".
Building materials,
including lime and cement, not required in the
manufacture of tiles for sale was, however, held to he not raw material in the manufacture or processing of goods or even as "plant''.
We may now tum to the present case.
The question which essentially arises for determination is whether fertilisers and other goods
mentioned in item No. (1) are intended for use by the appellant n.s
equipment or stores in the manufacture or processing of tea meant for
.
TRAVANCORE TEA ESTATES v. KERALA (Khanna, J.)
761
sale,
as urged on; behalf of the appellant.
The controversy between the parties has centred round th~ point as to whether fertilisers
and other goods mentioned in item No.
( 1) can be said to he goods
intended for use in the manufacture or processing of tea meant for
A
sale.
So far as this question is concerned, we find that the growing
and plucking of tea leaves from the plants and the processing of thme
leaves in the factories are parts of a continued activity.
The assertion of Mr. Desai: that the tea leaves would lose their value unless they
arc processed in the factory soon after they are plucked is not beinJ
questioned. It does not, however, follow from that that the cultivation or
tea plant~ and the growth of tea leaves is not something distinct from
the manufacturing process to 'which tea leaves are subjected in the
factories.
The fact that the time lag between the plucking of tea
leaves and•their being subjected to manufacturing process in the factories is very little would not detract from the conclusion that the
cultivation and growth of tea plants and leaves is something distinct
and separate from the manufacturing process to which those leaves an~
subjected in the factories for turning them into tea meant for sale.
Income which is realised by sale of tea by a tea company which grows
tea on its land and thereafter subjects it to manufacturing proces~ in
it& factory is an integrated income.
Such income consists of two
elements or components.
One element or component consists of the
agricultural income which is yielded in the form of green leaves purely
by the land over which tea plants are grown.
The second element
or component consists of non-agricultural income which is the result
of subjecting green leaves which are plucked from the tea plants grown
on the land to a particular manufacturing process in the factory of
the tea company.
Rule 24 of the Income-tax Rules, 1922 and rule
8 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 prescribe the formula which should
be adopted for apportioning the income realised as a result of the sale
of tea after it is grown and subjected to the manufacturing proce~s in
the factory.
Sixty per cent.
is taken to be agricultural income and
the same consists of the first element or component, while 40 per cent.
represents non-agricultural income and the same comprises the second
element or component (see Tea Estate India (P.) Ltd. v. Commis-
.rioner of Income-tax(').
Fertilisers and the other goods mentioned in item No. (1) are intended for use not in the manufacturi11g process in respect of tea
meant for sale, they are essentially needed for
tho cultivation and
growth of tea plants and leaves.
There is no direct relationship bytween use of fertilisers and other goods mentioned in item No. (I) and
the manufacturing process in respect of tea meant for sale.
What is
meant by manufacture of tea is clear from pages 863-4 of Vol. 21 of
Encyclopaedia Britannica ( 1965 Edition) wherein it is observed :
"Black and green teas result from different manufacturing processes applied to the same kind of leaf.
After plucking, the leaf is
wi'fhered by being spread on bamboo trays in the sun, or on withering
B
c
D
E
F
G
tats within doors.
The process takes 18 to 24 hours.
Next it is
H
rolled by hand or by machines.
The object of rolling is to break
(I) (103) I·T.R. 785.
A
B
c
D
E
762
SUPREME COURl' REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
the leaf cells and liberate the juices and enzymes s·ealed within.
The
roll may last as long as three hours.
Then it is taken to the roll
breaker and green leaf sifting machi11e and after that fermented in
baskets, on glass shelves or on cool cement floors under damp cloth
for 4 or 4t hours.
The firing process (drying) follows, in pans or
baskets or in firing machines.
It takes 30 to 40 min.
The difference
between black tea and green tea is the result of manipulation. Green
tea is manufactured by steaming without fermentation in a perforated
cylinder or boiler, thus retaining some of the green colour.
Black
tea is allowed to ferment after being rolled and before firing.
In the
case of black tea the process of fermentation, or oxidation,. reduces
the astringency of the leaf and, it is claimed, developes the colour and
aroma of the liquor.
In making green tea, the fermentation process
is arrested by steaming the leaf while it is green anc\ by li~ht rollinr
before drying."
The cultivation and growth of tea plants and leaves cannot, in
our opinion, be comprehended in the expression "in the manufacture
or processing of goods for sale". Cultivation and growth of tea plants
no doubt results in the production of raw material in the form of green
tea leaves which are ultimately processed into tea meant for sale, but
such cultivation and growth are in the very nature of things prior to
the manufacturing process and do not answer to the description of
manufacture and processing of tea meant for sale.
There is a vital
difference between an agricultural operation and a manufacturing process, and the same should not be lost sight of.
What is needed for
being used purely in an agricultural operation cannot be hekl to be
goods required, for use in a manufacturing process.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant was not entitled to get fertilisers
and other goods mentioned in item No. (1) included in the registration
certificate.
The same reasoning would also hold good in respect of
weighing machine used not in the factories but in the tea fields.
The appeal consequently fails and is dismissed with costs.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.