JUDGMENT The judgment of Court was delivered by C. V. JANI, J. - The following question is referred to this Court by the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad, under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right, in law in holding that the process of transferring and/or collecting and/or filling liquid petroleum gas from a big container into specially designed tins of smaller different sizes was not a process of' manufacture' as defined in section 2(16) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, and that the sales of such tins of smaller different sizes along with special adopters cannot be said to be sales of a new commercial commodity as manufactured by the opponent-firm ?" 2. The following is the brief factual background of the case : The opponent-firm, M/s. Asian Aerosol, which is a small-scale industry established in the industrial estate at Vapi, carries on business of manufacturing silicon spray, etc., and one of its activities is of refilling liquid petroleum gas ("LPG", for short) in smaller packings for sale. For this purpose it purchases inflammable gas in a cylinder of 14 kilograms and refills the same gas without any modification in smaller packings of 85 ml., 100 ml., 180 ml. and 240 ml. by adopting the mechanism of pump drawing, and such smaller packings are marketed by the opponent-firm as "gas for lighter (helping hand)" 3. The opponent-firm made an application on June 20, 1979, to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 62 of the Act to determine the question as to whether the activity of such refilling in smaller packing amounted to "manufacture" of goods as defined in section 2, clause (16) of the Act, and whether deduction for resale would be admissible under section 7(ii) of the Act, in view of the fact that gas in the cylinder was purchased from a registered dealer. The opponent produced bills and the concerned literature and contended that the goods purchased as well as the goods sold, namely, inflammable gas were the same goods without undergoing any modification in the process of refilling. 4. The opponent produced bills and the concerned literature and contended that the goods purchased as well as the goods sold, namely, inflammable gas were the same goods without undergoing any modification in the process of refilling. 4. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order of determination on October 9, 1980, by holding that the above activity of the opponent amounted to "manufacture", and that the sales in smaller refills were sales of a different commercial commodity and would not amount to resale within the meaning of section 2(16) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner based his determination on the following four considerations (i) That a kind of distinct identity was created in the article by adopting a new trade-name; (ii) A special process involving a valve and small rubber adopter had to be applied for transferring the contents from larger cylinders to smaller packings and then from the smaller packings to the cigarette lighters of different brands; (iii) An elaborate scientific mechanical process had to be adopted for transferring gas from a large container of 14.2 kilograms into different tins of smaller sizes; (iv) A comparison of the prices of LPG cylinders and of smaller containers indicated a vast difference in cost and profit. In view of these four factors the Deputy Commissioner held that there was a manufacturing activity and a new commercial commodity had come into existence. 5. The opponent-firm challenged this determination by filing Appeal No. 15/80 which came to be allowed by the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal considered the four factors which weighed with the Deputy Commissioner and found that the commodity purchased was LPG and the commodity sold was also LPG and there was no change in the substance though the packings were different. It found that though a special device like adopter was provided for facilitating the transfer of LPG gas, it could not be said to involve transformation of the original substance. It further held that the vast difference in prices of standard cylinders and small containers would not be material for the purpose of determining the main question. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the Supreme Court and this Court and allowed the appeal, and set aside the order of determination passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 7. At the instance of the Revenue, the aforestated question is referred to this Court. 8. Both the learned advocates - Mr. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the Supreme Court and this Court and allowed the appeal, and set aside the order of determination passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 7. At the instance of the Revenue, the aforestated question is referred to this Court. 8. Both the learned advocates - Mr. Kamal M. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. H. V. Chhatrapati for the applicant, State of Gujarat, and M/s. J. S. Joshi and S. L. Modi, learned counsel appearing for the opponent - had to agree that the case would be covered by a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Kosan Gas Company in Sales Tax Reference No. 15 of 1983 (Reported in [1992] 87 STC 236 (Guj).) which arose from almost similar facts. 9. The assessee, M/s. Kosan Gas Company, used to purchase LPG in bulk from M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and resell the gas by filling in smaller cylinders. The question which arose at the time of assessment for the relevant period was whether it was a resale or manufacture. The Sales Tax Officer held it was a case of resale of the goods purchased from the registered dealer and accordingly deductions were allowed. However, in suo motu revision by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax it was held that such a process of transferring the gas into smaller cylinders would amount to manufacture and, therefore, no deductions were permissible. The matter was carried before the Sales Tax Tribunal at the instance of the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Assistant Commissioner, on reaching the conclusion that there was no process of manufacturing undergone by the dealer. At the instance of the Revenue, a similar question was referred to this Court. This Court upheld the conclusion of the Tribunal and observed thai the Tribunal had rightly placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Harbilas Rai and Sons [1968] 21 STC 17, and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. D. S. Bist [1979] 44 STC 392. This Court also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in HMM Limited v. Administrator, Bangalore City Corporation [1990] 77 STC 17; AIR 1990 SC 47 . This Court also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in HMM Limited v. Administrator, Bangalore City Corporation [1990] 77 STC 17; AIR 1990 SC 47 . A gist of these decisions appears to be that the activity of collecting pig bristles, washing them with chemicals, sorting them according to the size and colour and tying them in separate bundles for being despatched to foreign countries for sale would not be branded as a manufacturing process; and also that a certain process subjecting tea leaves for preservation and making them fit for transport and marketing would not amount to manufacture; inasmuch as there was never a change in the character of these articles effected during such process. In the case of HMM Ltd. [1990] 77 STC 17; AIR 1990 SC 47 the Supreme Court was concerned with the transfer of milk powder known as "Horlicks" from big drums to small packings under the law relating to Octroi. The Supreme Court found that the milkfood powder remained the same and it was not used or consumed within the limits of Bangalore City, and only it was transferred from big packets to small packets. Ultimately the test would boil down to determine the question whether the commodity had undergone such vital changes by processing that it lost its character and became a different commodity. As the Supreme Court held in the context of sales tax legislation, if goods to which some labour is applied, remained essentially the same commercial article, it cannot be said that the final product is the result of manufacture. 10. In view of the aforesaid principle pronounced by the Supreme Court in its various judgments and followed by this Court earlier the question raised in this reference will have to be answered in the affirmative in favour of the opponent and against the Revenue. 11. The question is answered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.