JUDGMENT U. C. Srivastava, J. - The Division Benches of this Court opined that Division Bench decision in M/s Hiralal Ayodhya Prasad and others v. State of U.P.,( 1985 U. P. Local Bodies and Educational Cases page 705) holding that Gur lauta and raskat is neither a scheduled agricultural produce nor a processed form thereof for the purposes of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, be considered by Full Bench of this Court in view of the fact that the definition of 'molasses' which is used for preparation of these articles and certain other matters were not considered by the said Division Bench, hence this reference. 2. Before entering into this question, it will be relevant to make a reference to some of the provisions of the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam (for short Adhiniyam or Act). The said Adhiniyam or Act was enacted for regulating sale and purchase of agricultural produce for the establishment, superintendence and control of markets thereof. For regulating sale and purchase of agricultural produce market areas have been notified as such where after restriction in setting up, establishing and continuing any place for sale and purchase except under and in. accordance with licence granted by Mandi Samiti and conditions therein comes into existence. Under Section 17 of the Adhiniyam 'Mandi Samiti' which are also creation of statute are empowered to bring and collect fee from specified agricultural produce defined in the Act and specified in the schedule in the market area. Declaration of market area is made under Section 6 of the Adhiniyam while Section 8 provides for alteration of market areas and modification of the list of agricultural produce which is to be notified. Section 4-A which was added in the year 1970 confers power on the State Government to amend the schedule. 3. 'Agricultural produce' has been defined in Section 2 (a) of the Act. It reads as under : "2(a) 'agricultural produce' means such items of produce of agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, apiculture, sericulture, pisciculture, animal husbandary, or forest as are specified in the Schedule and includes admixture of two or more of such items, and also includes any such item in processed form, and further includes, gur, rab, shakkar khandasari and jaggery.' 4. It reads as under : "2(a) 'agricultural produce' means such items of produce of agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, apiculture, sericulture, pisciculture, animal husbandary, or forest as are specified in the Schedule and includes admixture of two or more of such items, and also includes any such item in processed form, and further includes, gur, rab, shakkar khandasari and jaggery.' 4. Words in the end and beginning from "and further includes, gur, rab shakkar, khandsari and jaggery" were added by U. P. Act No. 10 of 1970 by means of which the existing definition of 'agricultural produce' was substituted. This amendment was made after a single judge decision of this Court in Nanak Chand v. State of U. P., 1969 ALJ page 352 holding that gur, rab, shakkar etc. are agricultural produce within the meaning of Act. It was in the said case that in preparation of these articles sugarcane juice does not lose its identity. The procedure involved cannot be said to be involving the creation to a substance which is entirely distinct in its nature or character of the sugarcane juice. The process does not involve manufacture and it is merely laboratory treatment and manipulation of sugarcane juice which produces some change in the substance. 5. Sugarcane is shown in the schedule to be one of the Agricultural produce under the heading 'Miscellaneous' (No. VIII) and none of the above mentioned four articles namely gur, rab, shakkar and khandsari etc, have been included or added in the schedule may It be because articles in their natural form under any head have been mentioned therein and which are raw materials for processing it into changed or different substance by physical chemical or any other process. The definition of agricultural produce itself provides for inclusion of admixture of two such items or their processed form to any such form. It appears that after the decision of Nanak Chand's case (supra) in order to keep this matter, the Legislature included gur rab, shakkar and jaggery in the definition clause itself instead of leaving it on the State Government to include the same in the schedule. It appears that after the decision of Nanak Chand's case (supra) in order to keep this matter, the Legislature included gur rab, shakkar and jaggery in the definition clause itself instead of leaving it on the State Government to include the same in the schedule. It may be that in view of the nature of the articles mentioned therein all of which are in their unmixed and unprocessed natural form, it would have been incongruous to include the same in the schedule, the State Government took steps to elaborate the definition clause pertaining to agricultural produce by proposing an amendment in the Adhiniyam. 6. The definition of 'agricultural produce' as it stood in the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam before its amendment in the year 1970 or eve thereafter does not confer power on any authority to add any item of agricultural produce but vide Section 4-A added by the Amending Act 1970, thin power has been conferred upon the State Government to add or take out any existing item from this schedule. 7. Gur Lauta or Raskat, or Rab Salawat or Rab Galawat by whatever name the same is known is produced or manufactured from molasses according to both the parties. Despite time granted by this court petitioners did not file any supplementary affidavit elaborating it but in the counter affidavit filed by the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti it has been stated that the same is produced by heating sugarcane juice further with molasses. The raw material for Gur Lauta is the molasses which can be produced either from the molasses with or without addition to sugarcane juice in the same. 8. In the case of Sheo Narain Jagdish Narain v. State Government of U. P. and another, 1970 U.P. Tax Cases 320 relying on another Division Bench decision of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s Sehtu Prasad Lalta Prasad. Special Appeal No. 627 of 1963). it was observed that Gur Lauta is only a hardened form of molasses and is not a new kind of commodity and Khandsari molasses and Gur Lauta are the same commodities. Though the said case was under Sales Tax Act but so far as this part is concerned there appears no dispute or challenge to the same. it was observed that Gur Lauta is only a hardened form of molasses and is not a new kind of commodity and Khandsari molasses and Gur Lauta are the same commodities. Though the said case was under Sales Tax Act but so far as this part is concerned there appears no dispute or challenge to the same. The contention on behalf of opposite parties was that this product which is prepared or manufactured from the molasses too is gur containing sucrose which is also inter mixed in molasses like sugarcane juice. In sugar, Rab Shakkar, or Gur which is prepared or manufactured from the sugarcane juice itself; sucrose obviously is not less than 90 per cent while in Gur Lauta it is much less though the percentage may vary according to the quality to molasses from which the same is prepared. Reliance has been placed on behalf of opposite parties on the definition of gur given in various Government Orders including Gur (Regulation of Use) Order, 1961 and U. P. Sugar and Gur Dealers Licensing Order, 196^. In this latter Order Gur is defined as under :- "Gur means the article commonly known as gur, gul, juggery, shakkar and rab and includes raw sugar and uncrystalised sugar in any other form comprising of original and convertible molasses and other in purities, inherent or foreign, prepared from boiling cane or palmyra juice." 9. The wide definition of Gur has obviously been given for the purposes of grant of licence or regulation of its business and also to bring within its ambit any other preparation so that the provisions of the said order are not defeated. It is settled principle of interpretation of Statute that the definition of a particular word or phrase in that Act cannot be imported in other Statute in which the definition or the clause is to be considered in the light of the scheme of the Act and its provisions. Accordingly the contention that Gur ordinarily known, is prepared from the sugar cane juice and Gur Lauta and Raskat are the same thing has got to be rejected. 10. Molasses which are by product of sugarcane juice in preparation of sugar, gur etc, loses the original character of sugarcane juice because of physical and mechanical conversion and the processing of the sugarcane juice. So far as sugar, gur etc. 10. Molasses which are by product of sugarcane juice in preparation of sugar, gur etc, loses the original character of sugarcane juice because of physical and mechanical conversion and the processing of the sugarcane juice. So far as sugar, gur etc. are concerned they retain the original character of sugar cane juice but the molasses does not and for all practical purposes is a new product though the same comes out from physical and mechanical processing of the sugarcane juice and it cannot be identified as sugarcane. 11. In U. P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964, 'molasses' have been defined in Section 2 (d) as under :- "2(d) 'molasses' means the heavy dark coloured viscous liquid produced in the final stage of manufacture of sugar by vacuum pan, from sugar cane or gur, when the liquid as such in any form or admixture contains sugar." 12. In Indian Power of Alcohol Act, 1948, it has been defined as hereunder :- "(a) 'molasses' means the heavy, dark coloured residual syrup drained away in the final stage of the manufacture of sugar by vacuum pans in sugar factories either from sugar cane or by refining gur, when such a syrup has fomentabte sugar (expressed as reducing sugar) but does not include the final residual syrup left in the manufacture of sugar by open pan process." 13. The definition indicates that molasses are produced in the final stage of manufacture etc. by vacuum pan process and not by any other process. It is not the admixture of two items of agricultural produce i.e. sugarcane or some other agricultural produce given in the schedule nor is product as such of processing of any agricultural produce as the product is gur, rab, sugar etc. The residue article containing various other ingredients cannot take the place of the item included in the schedule or its converted or solid form, On behalf of opposite parties reliance was placed on certain cases decided under Sales Tax Act and reference to two such cases are being made as the other case practically follow the same. 14. One of the said cases is Commissioner of Sales Tax U. P. v. M/s. Prem Chand Jia Lal Charthawala, 1974 U.P. Tax Cases 276 in which it was held that Gur Badda and Gur Lauta both are extracted from Rab. 14. One of the said cases is Commissioner of Sales Tax U. P. v. M/s. Prem Chand Jia Lal Charthawala, 1974 U.P. Tax Cases 276 in which it was held that Gur Badda and Gur Lauta both are extracted from Rab. Gur Badda is not the game as that of molasses, as it is prepared from the Rab after Khandsari sugar of the first process is taken out and Gur Lauta is prepared from the residue after processing the Khand in the first process. It is to be noted that this case was decided after taking into consideration the addition of an Explanation to Section 3-D of the Sales Tax Act by Section 6(C) of the U. P. Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972. It provided that Khandsari molasses including Sheera Sugar, Sheera Galawat and Sheera Saiawat would be different from Rab including Rab Sugar, Rab Galawat and Sheera Galawat and would be different from Gur Lauta and Gur Raskat. Thus for the purpose of Sales Tax Act above mentioned amendment was made and the cases in question have no relevancy for the purposes of definition of agricultural produce in the 'Adhiniyam'. 15. Reference was also made to the case of Ms. Bansidhar Devenira Kumar v. Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax and others. 1982 U. P. Tax Cases 1025 in which it was held that Gur Badda is nothing but Gur Raskat and is a variety of Gur included in the term of Gur for the purposes of the Act. This interpretation was given for the purposes of U. P. Sales Tax Act in view of Explanation I to Section 3-D of the U. P. Sales Tax which was introduced by the Amending Act of 1974. 16. These cases are of no assistance, the same having been decided in the light of very wide definition given in the said 'Act' for the purposes of levying of Sales Tax. 17. Thus, molasses are a different product which loses its original character and being a residual article after solidification of the natural article i.e. sugarcane juice, it cannot be said to be agricultural produce. 17. Thus, molasses are a different product which loses its original character and being a residual article after solidification of the natural article i.e. sugarcane juice, it cannot be said to be agricultural produce. In the case of Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar and Company and others v. State of U. P. and another AIR 1980 SC 1124 in which various items of agricultural produce were considered, it was observed that agricultural produce purchased by the dealers will be chargeable to market fee and not the sale of the products after one kind of processing or the other. 18. We are of the opinion that even if molasses, Gur Lauta and Raskat etc. which are prepared from molasses which by itself is not an agricultural produce will not be an agricultural produce within the meaning of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, even if some sugarcane is mixed for the manufacture or preparation of these articles which are rather solid form of molasses. 19. In view of the reasons stated above we are of the view that the con elusion of the Division Bench in M/s Hiralal Ayodhya Prasad and others v. State of U. P., 1985 U. P. Local Bodies and Educational Cases page 705) that these articles are not agricultural produce within the meaning of the Act, is correct. The Reference is answered accordingly.