N. K. SODHI, C. J. ( 1 ) SECTION 19c of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act 1957 (for short 'the Act') provides that the State Government may in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by notification defer payment by any new industrial unit of the whole or any part of the tax payable in respect of any period or exempt the whole or any part of the tax payable by a new industrial unit in respect of any period. In exercise of this power the State Government by its notification dated 15-11-1996 exempted the tax payable under the Act in respect of goods manufactured and sold by new industrial units in column No. 2 of table A mentioned in the notification located in zones specified in column No. 3 and during the period and to the extent mentioned in column No. 4 thereof. ( 2 ) THE appellant before us is a limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the activity of manufacture and sale of various goods including cement. It is registered as a dealer under the Act. It has put up a cement unit at Panambur Mangalore in the State of Karnataka. It claimed exemption from payment of tax in terms of the aforesaid notification dated 15-11-1996 on the ground that it was a new industrial unit manufacturing cement in the State of Karnataka. The matter was considered by the state level committee set up by the State Government which came to the conclusion that the appellant was not a manufacturing unit and was therefore not liable for sales tax exemption. It was held that the appellant had setup a packing unit in Mangalore where cement was imported from its manufacturing unit at Kovaya situate in district Amreli in the State of Gujarat and that the appellant was effecting sales in the course of interstate and intrastate trade in the State of Karnataka. This action of the respondents not allowing sales tax exemption was challenged in the writ petition out of which the present writ appeal has arisen. On a consideration of the entire material on the record and the relevant case law the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the unit set up by the appellant at Mangalore was a packing unit and was not manufacturing cement in the State of Karnataka. On a consideration of the entire material on the record and the relevant case law the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the unit set up by the appellant at Mangalore was a packing unit and was not manufacturing cement in the State of Karnataka. In view of this finding it was further held that the appellant was not entitled to sales tax exemption in terms of the notification dated 15-11-1996. It is against this order of the learned single Judge that the present writ appeal has been filed. ( 3 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned single Judge. The only question that requires to be considered in this writ appeal is whether the appellant is manufacturing cement at its plant in Mangalore in the State of Karnataka so as to be entitled to claim exemption in terms of the notification dated 15-11-1996. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously urged that the manufacture of cement consists of the following stages (a) preparation of raw mix (b) production of clinker (c) clinker grinding in the cement mill (d) blending/homogenising of the ground cement in Silos and packing into bags and that the fourth stage is being carried out at its new plant set up in Mangalore and that without homogenising cement and packing it into bags the same does not become marketable. The argument of the learned senior counsel is that apart of the manufacturing process is being carried on at Mangalore in the State of Karnataka and therefore the appellant is manufacturing cement in the State so as to be entitled to claim sales tax exemption under the aforesaid notification. The learned Government advocate on the other hand contended that the cement manufactured by the appellant at its Gujarat (Kovaya) unit is brought in bulk in specially built ships in a packed form. The same packed cement is put through a mechanical device in the packing process and is somewhat blended to maintain fineness strength etc which according to the department are activities incidental to packing the cement in bulk brought from Gujarat. The same packed cement is put through a mechanical device in the packing process and is somewhat blended to maintain fineness strength etc which according to the department are activities incidental to packing the cement in bulk brought from Gujarat. According to the respondents the process carried on by the appellant at its Panambur packing unit is in the interest of its sales promotion so as to make the commodity more saleable in a better form in competition with its competitors. It is also the case of the respondents that the appellant has obtained F forms from the department of commercial taxes which are used as a proof of stock transfer of its finished goods from one State to another. Reference in this regard is made to the requisition made by the appellant for obtaining F forms from the department. In one of the requisitions dated 26-1-2001 addressed by the appellant to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Mangalore the former stated as under:"we have been getting bulk cement from out plant located in Kovaya in Gujarat as Stock Transfer September-1998. Since our said unit is under assessment for the year 1998-99, we request you to kindly issue one F Form book along with the respective register". ( 4 ) AS already observed the sole question that requires consideration is whether the process of homogenising cement as stated by the appellant in its plant at Mangalore amounts to manufacture of cement. We do not think so. In the requisition dated 26-1-2001 referred to above the appellant it self has informed the department that it has transferred bulk cement from its plant in Gujarat to Mangalore and a request has been made for the issue of F forms. These forms are meant for stock transfers from one State to the other. It is not that a part of the manufacturing process is to take place at Mangalore. The commodity that is shipped from Gujarat is nothing else but cement itself. The matter had been referred by the department to a technical committee consisting of experts which in its report observed as under:"in the Silos, cement is extracted with the help of an Aeration System. Aerated cement is extracted from a number of ports (Openings) in the bottom of the Silos, which are connected to the respective extraction zones. The matter had been referred by the department to a technical committee consisting of experts which in its report observed as under:"in the Silos, cement is extracted with the help of an Aeration System. Aerated cement is extracted from a number of ports (Openings) in the bottom of the Silos, which are connected to the respective extraction zones. The sequence and the rates of Extraction system from the various zones of the Silos are programmed to optimise the homogenisation process. It is observed that there is no chemical change in the cement inside the Silos. The cement is subjected to blowing of air through Aeration System in order to keep the cement in homogenous form which will facilitate easy flow and loading of cement into the bags. Thus it can be drawn that there is no manufacturing process involved in the plant". A copy of this report was supplied to the appellant in pursuance to the directions issued by this court and it was thereafter that the department came to the conclusion that the so called process of homogenising cement at Mangalore was not a part of the manufacturing process but was only a part of the packing unit set up by the appellant in the State of Karnataka. It is clear from the findings of the technical committee that there is no chemical change in the cement inside Silos. The cement is only subjected to blowing of air through the aeration system in order to keep cement in homogenous form which facilitates the loading of cement into bags. Even the project report submitted by the appellant which is annexure A to the writ petition states that the unit has been set up at Mangalore to receive and transfer the same in a totally enclosed system from the special purpose pneumatic cement vessels to the homogenising Silos. It is thus clear that what is brought to the unit at Mangalore is cement which is further put through some process which does not bring about any change in the end product but only makes it more saleable as compared to the product of its competitors. It is by now well settled that all manufacturing or production activities involve some kind of a process but all processes do not lead to the manufacturing of an article. It is by now well settled that all manufacturing or production activities involve some kind of a process but all processes do not lead to the manufacturing of an article. It is only when a change takes place in the commodity which is subjected to a process and the end product is different that one can say that a manufacturing process had taken place. The Apex Court in a recent judgment in Union Of India Vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited AIR 2004 SC 11 held that the word manufacture is generally understood to mean as bringing into existence a new substance and that may involve a number of processes and the aim of any manufacturing activity is to have a new end product. In the case before us the product brought from Gujarat is cement, it undergoes the process of homogenisation and the end product is also cement which is sold in a packed condition. We are therefore satisfied that no manufacturing activity is involved in this process and therefore it cannot be said that the new unit set up by the appellant at Mangalore manufactures cement so as to be entitled to claim exemption from sales tax in terms of the notification dated 15-11-1996. ( 5 ) IN the result the writ appeal fails and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs. --- *** --- .