JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE question to be decided in this petition is whether the petitioner is liable to pay entry tax on sugar used for preparation of Bura at the rate of Rs. 2 per cent or 0. 50 per cent. ( 2. ) THE relevant periods with which we are concerned here are from 11th November 1977 to 31st October 1978 and 18th January 1980 to 10th august 1980. Entry tax is levied by the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976. Section 2 (b) of the Act defines entry tax to mean "a tax on entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein levied and payable in accordance with the provisions of the Act and includes composition money payable under section 7-A. " Section 3 is the charging provision. Section 4 deals with the rate of tax. We are here concerned with section 4 (1) and clause (i) of the first proviso to that section which read as follows: "section 4. Rate at which entry tax to be charged:- (1) The entry tax payable by a dealer under this Act shall be charged on his taxable quantum relating to goods specified in Schedule II and Schedule III at the rates mentioned in the said Schedules: provided that notwithstanding anything contained in this sub-Section and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed:- (i) The entry tax payable in respect of goods specified in Schedule II (other than those specified at serial numbers 3, 13 and 14 thereof) or schedule III which are consumed or used as raw material for the manufacture of other goods shall be half per cent if the rate of tax specified in Schedule II or Schedule III exceeds half per cent. " The relevant entry in Schedule II is entry No. 11 which reads: "sugar as defined in item No. 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. " The rate of tax mentioned against entry No. 11 is 2 per cent. In item No. 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act " Sugar" is defined to mean "any form of sugar in which the sucrose content, if expressed as a percentage of the material dried to constant weight at 105 centigrade, would be more than ninety. In item No. 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act " Sugar" is defined to mean "any form of sugar in which the sucrose content, if expressed as a percentage of the material dried to constant weight at 105 centigrade, would be more than ninety. " Section 2 (2) of the Entry Tax Act provides that all those expressions, other than expression "goods" and "sale" which are used but are not defined in this Act and are defined in the Sales tax Act shall have the meanings assigned to them in that Act. The word "manufacture" is defined in section 2 (j) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act which reads : " "manufacture" includes any process or manner producing, collecting, extracting, preparing or making any goods, and in respect of trees which have been severed from the land or which have been felled, also the process of lopping the branches, cutting the trunks or converting them into logs, poles or bailies or any other articles of wood, but does not include such manufactures or manufacturing process as may be notified. " ( 3. ) THE petitioner describes the process of preparation of Bura from sugar and its qualities as follows : The sugar or Khandasari is mixed with water till it is dissolved into homogeneous mixture. This mixture of water and sugar/khandsari is put into a pan and it is boiled by heating the same with energy. While the mixture is being heated, a chemical called Masala and Milk is mixed with it so that no crystals are formed. In this process impurities are taken out from the mixture and thrown as waste, The solution is then taken back from the pan or Kadhai for further purifying it by pouring it through a cloth. Thereafter, the same is boiled again till all the water in the mixture is evaporated. Manual labour is then applied to prepare amorphous powder which is called Bura. Bura is purer than sugar and is used for sweetening curd or khir and in preparing sweets, particularly Magaj or Laddu made from Besan. ( 4. ) THE standards for cane sugar, refined sugar and Bura as given in appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, are as under: a. 07. 01. Cane sugar is the crystallized sugar obtained from sugarcane, beetroot etc. ( 4. ) THE standards for cane sugar, refined sugar and Bura as given in appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, are as under: a. 07. 01. Cane sugar is the crystallized sugar obtained from sugarcane, beetroot etc. and includes the refined product obtained from gar. It shall contain not more than 0. 7 per cent of ash, not more than 1. 5 per cent of water and not less than 96. 5 per cent of sucrose. It may contain sulphur dioxide in concentration not exceeding 70 parts per million. " A. 07. 01. 01.-Refined sugar means the sugar obtained from the juice of sugarcane or sugar beet. It shall be colourless crystals from white powder, odourless and free from added colours, dirt, dust, insect fragments, mite and larvae. It shall conform to the following standards: Sucrose. . . . . . . . . . . . Not less than 99. 8 per cent. Total ash. . . . . . . . . Not more than 0. 3 per cent. Sulphur dioxide content shall not exceed 70 p. p. m. A. 07. 02. Bura shall contain not less than 96. 5 per cent of total sugars expressed as sucrose and shall not contain more than half per cent of its weight as ash insoluble in dilute hydrochloric acid. In the case of Khandsari, the minimum sugar content in terms of sucrose shall not be less than 90 per cent. Bura and Khandsari may contain sulphur dioxide in concentration not exceeding 70 parts per million. " ( 5. ) THE rates of tax applicable for entry tax are the rates mentioned in schedule II and Schedule III in respect of goods specified therein. Two per cent is the rate mentioned in respect of sugar against Entry No. 11 in Schedule II. Under section 4 (1) entry tax in respect of sugar is chargeable at the rate of 2 per cent. The petitioner, however, contends that in so far as he brings in sugar into the local area for manufacture of Bura, his case falls within proviso one to section 4 and he is liable to pay entry tax at the rate of re. 0. 50 per cent only. The petitioner, however, contends that in so far as he brings in sugar into the local area for manufacture of Bura, his case falls within proviso one to section 4 and he is liable to pay entry tax at the rate of re. 0. 50 per cent only. A perusal of the proviso makes it clear that for its application it is necessary that the goods brought into within the local area should be for consumption or use as raw material for the manufacture of other goods and then only the concessional rate of tax at half per cent can be applied. Entry No. 11 in Schedule II relating to sugar adopts the definition of sugar as in the Central Excises and Salt Act and in accordance with that definition, both cane sugar and Bura are different forms of sugar and fall within the same entry. It is, however, contended that Bura is a different commercial commodity and, therefore, when the petitioner brings in sugar and prepares Bura it can be said that he has consumed or used the sugar so brought in as raw material for manufacture of other goods within the meaning of the proviso to section 4 and, therefore, he is entitled to the concessional rate of tax. It is the merit of this contention which we have to examine in this petition. ( 6. ) THE definition of manufacture as contained in section 2 (j) of the state Sales Tax Act is prima facie very wide, but it has to be applied in the context of the language used in the proviso to section 4 of the Entry Tax Act. The relevant words used in the proviso are "consumed or used as raw material for the manufacture of other goods". The use of the expressions "raw material" and "other goods" clearly indicate that the other goods which result after the process of manufacture must be different goods from the goods used as raw material. So in spite of the wide meaning of the definition of manufacture the benefit of the proviso can only be taken when it is shown that the original article said to be used as raw materia) has undergone such a transformation that the net product is a new and different article. So in spite of the wide meaning of the definition of manufacture the benefit of the proviso can only be taken when it is shown that the original article said to be used as raw materia) has undergone such a transformation that the net product is a new and different article. In other words, there should be no identity between the goods consumed or used as raw material and the goods produced for application of the proviso. The question as to when an article loses its identity by application of different processes and becomes a new commercial commodity is a question of fact and degree and there is no rigid formula which can be applied for determining this question. There are a number of Supreme Court cases which illustrate the application of this principle. In Anwarkhan Mahboob Co. v. State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 213 . bidi patti was held to be a different commercial commodity into which tobacco was converted. In A. H. Abdul S. and Co. v. State of Madras, AIR 1964 SC 1729 . it was held that raw hides and skins constituted a different commodity from dressed hides and skins with different physical properties. In State of Madras v. Swastik tobacco Factory, AIR 1966 SC 1000 . chewing tobacco was held to be manufactured from raw tobacco. In Ganesh Trading Co. , Karnal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1974 SC 1362 . and in State of karnataka v. B. Raghurama Shetty, AIR 1981 SC 1206 . it was held that in the process of rice milling paddy was consumed for manufacture of rice i. e. paddy and rice were different commercial commodities. In Kathiwar Industries Ltd. v, Jaffrabad municipality, AIR 1979 SC 1721 . it was held that crushed salt was a different commercial commodity from uncrushed salt which underwent a process of manufacture while being crushed in the factory. In Hindustan Aluminium Corpn. v. State of U. P. , AIR 1981 SC 1649 . it was held that when aluminium ingots and billets are converted into aluminium rolled products, they go through a process of manufacture which brings into existence a new marketable commodity. Recently, a Division Bench of this court held that separated pulses constituted different commercial commodities from whole pulses and that whole pulses were consumed in the manufacture of separated pulses in a Dal Mill M/s. Chandrabhan Brijmohan and Co. Recently, a Division Bench of this court held that separated pulses constituted different commercial commodities from whole pulses and that whole pulses were consumed in the manufacture of separated pulses in a Dal Mill M/s. Chandrabhan Brijmohan and Co. v. Shri d. K. Verma and anor, Misc. Petition No. 756 of 1979, decided on 3-10-1980 (1981 M P L J 229 ). In contrast to these cases in Tungabhadra Industries v. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1961 SC 412 . it was held that ground-nut oil did not change its identity on being processed to become hydrogenated groundnut oil. Similarly, in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Harbilas Rai and Sons, (1968) 21 STC 17 (S C ). where bristles plucked from pigs were boiled and washed with soap and other chemicals and sorted out in bundles according to their size and colours, it was held that they remained the same commercial commodity, i,e. pigs bristles. In Dy. Commr. , sales Tax, Ernakulam v. Pio Food Packers, AIR 1980 SC 1227 . it was held that the processing of pineapple fruit into slices for selling in sealed cans does not involve consumption and the tinned pineapple is not different commercial commodity from pineapple fruit. And in S. T. Commr. , Lucknow v. D. S. Bist and Sons, AIR 1980 SC 169 . it was held that tea leaves did not cease to be agricultural produce after being subjected to certain processes to make them fit for human consumption. ( 7. ) AS earlier stated by us, the cases mentioned above only illustrate that the question whether an article having undergone certain processes becomes a different article and the processes reach the stage of manufacture is a question of fact and degree and has to be answered having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. A convenient test to be applied in deciding such cases was laid down by the Supreme Court of United States in anhevser- Bvsch Brewing Association v. United States, (1907) 52 L Ed. 336 p 338. in the following words "manufacture implies a change, but every change is not manufacture, and yet every change in an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation. But something more is necessary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 p 338. in the following words "manufacture implies a change, but every change is not manufacture, and yet every change in an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation. But something more is necessary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . There must be transformation; a new and different article must emerge, having a distinctive name, character or use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . At some point processing and manufacturing will merge. But where the commodity retains a continuing substantia! identity through the processing stage we cannot say that it has been manufactured. " This test was approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Dy. Commr. Sales Tax, Ernakulam v. Pio Food Packers (supra ). ( 8. ) THE question then is: does the sugar lose its identity in undergoing the process which is described by the petitioner for changing it into Bura ? we have already noticed the standards prescribed for cane sugar and Bura in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Both contain not less than 96. 5 per cent of sugar as sucrose. The only difference is that cane sugar is crystallized sugar and Bura is amorphous sugar. Sugar after being processed for making Bura retains a "continuing substantial identity" and it is not possible to hold that the processing reaches the stage of manufacture or that bura is a different commercial commodity from sugar. This conclusion is further strengthened by noticing that all forms of sugar are treated as one category of goods by Parliament and the State Legislature in different legislations. Reference in this connection has already been made to the definition of sugar in item No. 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt act, 1944. The same definition of sugar is contained in section 14 (8) of the central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the same definition is referred to in Item no. 11 of Schedule II of the Entry Tax Act. Our conclusion is also supported by the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Mangoo Mai Ram Kishore1, (1974) 33 STc 182 delhi. The same definition of sugar is contained in section 14 (8) of the central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the same definition is referred to in Item no. 11 of Schedule II of the Entry Tax Act. Our conclusion is also supported by the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Mangoo Mai Ram Kishore1, (1974) 33 STc 182 delhi. It was held in this case that "bura" is only a form of sugar and is covered by the word "sugar" as understood in its common parlance not only amongst the people conversant with the subject-matter but also by the Government in various Acts. We may, in support of our view, further refer to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Commr of Sales Tax v. Damodar Dass, 31 STC 374. where it was held that Kulia Khand prepared from Khandsari sugar was a different form of Khandsari sugar and not a different commodity. The process of preparing Kulia Khand from Khandsari sugar bears similarity with the process used in preparing Bura from sugar. Khandsari sugar is dissolved in water and to the solution are added certain purifying agents. The mixture is then heated and the impurities come to the surface in the form of scum which is removed. The refined solution is then poured into wooden moulds and the moulds are allowed to cool when the liquid takes a solid shape. This substance is then taken out of the moulds and is called Kulia Khand. Nearly the same process is undertaken in preparing Bura from Sugar. For these reasons, we are of opinion that the petitioners case does not fall under the proviso to section 4 (1) of the Entry Tax Act and the sales tax authorities were right in charging entry tax at the rate of 2 per cent in accordance with section 4 (1) and Entry No. II in Schedule II. ( 9. ) THE petition fails and is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. The security amount be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.