JUDGMENT V. K. SINGHAL, J. - In all the above four revisions, since common question of law is involved, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment : All the assessees excavate mineral, namely, silica-sand from the mines and the minerals so excavated are crushed into pieces and after doing screening, it is graded in different sizes. The graded silica-sand is used in various industries like tiles, ceramic, glass, etc. The tax under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, in accordance with section 5 read with rule 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955, is payable at first point. As per notification dated March 23, 1963, a manufacturer can pass on the incidence of tax to a second registered dealer on furnishing of form S.T. 17. The assessees claimed themselves to be a manufacturer and on that basis the sales were claimed not liable to tax, in accordance with declaration form S.T. 17 submitted in all these years. In the Revision No. 15 of 1993 of Singhal & Sons for the year 1979-80 and in revision No. 17 of 1993 of Singhal & Sons (Mines) for the assessment year 1981-82, the assessing authority examined the claim of the assessee in the assessment proceedings and found that the assessee is a manufacturer. The deduction claimed was accordingly allowed. The assessing authority found that the lumps which are taken out of the mines are crushed and thereafter graded in different sizes of silica-sand and as such the assessee is a manufacturer. Thereafter on the directions of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, the matter was reopened under section 12 and the deduction allowed was disallowed. In the appeal it was submitted that the assessee was registered as a manufacturer and the Director of Industries has also issued S.S.I. certificate to the assessee and from the very beginning, he has always been treated as a manufacturer. The appeals were accepted and the matter was remanded for assessment years 1977 to 1979-80. In the present appeals also, the Deputy Commissioner found that the silica-sand required for glass factory is different than what is used in a foundry. The appeals were accepted and the matter was remanded for assessment years 1977 to 1979-80. In the present appeals also, the Deputy Commissioner found that the silica-sand required for glass factory is different than what is used in a foundry. It was found that the sales have been effected by the assessee to its sister concern and a certificate of the said concern was produced that they have paid the tax on the purchases made from the assessee and therefore, in order to avoid the double taxation on the same commodity, the appeals were accepted. In the matter of Girrota Silica Udyog, for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 and Girrota Silica Traders for the year 1982-83, the claim of the assessee was disallowed in the assessment proceedings. In respect of all these matters, second appeal was preferred before the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, and the procedure adopted by the assessees was found that the boulders are excavated from the mines and they are graded. The stones and the impurities are removed and thereafter the process of screening and grading is adopted. From the mines, when the silica-sand is taken out, it is in pink or yellow colour. The different sizes of silica-sand is taken out after passing through the sieve and such graded silica-sand is used for different industries like tiles, ceramic, glass, sodium silicate, etc. The lumps excavated from the mines are not sold and it is only after the above process, that silica-sand of different sizes, grade and mesh is prepared and sold. It was contended that the assessees are not only the mines owner, but, manufacturer as well and are registered with the Industries Department as a small-scale industry and in accordance with S.I.I., the graded silica-sand has been considered to be a manufactured item. A physical inspection was carried on by the assessing authority and in accordance with the opinion of the assessing authority, the assessees were manufacturer and therefore a letter was written that the audit objection should be dropped. The Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal found that the word "excavation" has been defined under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Rules, 1986 and it has been defined that excavation means digging and/or collecting of minor minerals from any land. The Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal found that the word "excavation" has been defined under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Rules, 1986 and it has been defined that excavation means digging and/or collecting of minor minerals from any land. The decision of this Court in the case of Commercial Taxes officer v. Umed Sizing Factory [1989] 73 STC 126; (1989) 5 RTJS I was also taken into consideration where it was observed : "Section 2(k) reads as under : 'manufacture' includes any process or manner of producing, collecting, extracting, preparing or making any goods but does not include such manufactures or manufacturing processes as may be notified by the State Government. The manufacture as defined in the present Act includes processing also. The process has been defined in the Webster's Third New International Dictionary and reads as under : 'Process : to subject to a particular method, system or technique of preparation, handling or other treatment designed to effect a particular result; put through a special process as ........' So, in the wider context of the definition the manufacture includes the processing also." The Sales Tax Tribunal found that when the silica-sand is excavated from the mines it is having red or yellow layers which are removed and thereafter it is grinned. The grading in different sizes, washing, passing through the sieves were found, the process under which the excavated mineral goes. It was on the basis of the various processes, the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, came to the conclusion that the assessees is a manufacturer and therefore can shift point of tax in accordance with the notification dated March 23, 1963, on furnishing form S.T. 17. The submission of Mr. Bapna, on behalf of the Revenue is that this Court in Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bikaner Gypsum Ltd. [1986] 61 STC 264, has held that the process of excavation is not a process of manufacture. I have considered over the matter. The manufacture under section 2(k) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act has been defined to include any process or manner of producing, collecting, extracting, preparing or making any goods. The word "extract" is not synonymous to the word excavate. I have considered over the matter. The manufacture under section 2(k) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act has been defined to include any process or manner of producing, collecting, extracting, preparing or making any goods. The word "extract" is not synonymous to the word excavate. In the case of Bikaner Gypsum Ltd. [1986] 61 STC 264, it was found by this Court that gypsum which is taken out in lumps is sold as it is and there is no transformation nor a new or different article emerges. The Revenue has raised the following question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal : "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the process undertaken by the assessee can be termed as 'manufacture' within the meaning of section 2(k) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act ?" From the above question, it would be evident that the findings which have been recorded by the Tribunal have not been challenged as perverse more particularly when a finding has been recorded that the commodity is not sold as it is in the form of lumps. The mineral which is excavated from the mine, and sold in the form of a lump cannot be said to be a commodity different than what has been excavated. The word "manufacture" has recently been considered by the apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. N. C. Budharaja & Company (C.A. Nos. 4238-4240 of 1983, decided on September 7, 1993) [Reported in [1993] 91 STC 450 (SC); [1993] 204 ITR 412 (SC)] and the words "manufacture" and "production" were interpreted as under : The words 'manufacture' and 'production' have received extensive judicial attention both under this Act as well as the Central Excises Act and the various sales tax laws. The word 'production' has a wider connotation than the word 'manufacture'. While every manufacture can be characterised as production, every production need not amount to manufacture. The meaning of the expression 'manufacture' was considered by this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sates Tax v. Pio Food Puckers [1980] 46 STC 63 (SC) among other decisions. The word 'production' has a wider connotation than the word 'manufacture'. While every manufacture can be characterised as production, every production need not amount to manufacture. The meaning of the expression 'manufacture' was considered by this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sates Tax v. Pio Food Puckers [1980] 46 STC 63 (SC) among other decisions. In the said decision, the test evolved for determining whether manufacture can be said to have taken place is, whether the commodity which is subjected to the process of manufacture can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but is recognised in the trade as a new and distinct commodity. ....... The word 'production' or 'produce' when used in juxtaposition with the word 'manufacture' takes in bringing into existence new goods by a process which may or may not amount to manufacture. It also takes in all the by-products, intermediate products and residual products which emerge in the course of manufacture of goods." The finding which has been given by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal in the present case is that the mineral is excavated from the mine in the form of lumps. The red or yellow colour on both sides of the lumps are removed and then it is grinded. The mineral is thereafter screened and graded. The process of washing and other minor processes are also undertaken. All these assessees are registered with the Director of Industries as a small-scale industry. The silica-sand of a particular size is used in a particular industry and cannot be used for other purposes. The lumps have been found to be non-tradable commodity, the decision which has been given in the case of Bikaner Gypsum Ltd. [1986] 61 STC 264, of this Court does not therefore have any application to the facts of the present case. The various assessees in the present matter have rightly been considered to be manufacturer and therefore the benefit of notification dated March 23, 1963, has rightly been given. No case is made out for interference in the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in the revisional jurisdiction. The revisions have no force and are dismissed with no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.