Judgment 1. Petitioner M/s Anand Saw Mills, Supaul manufactures Chaukhat (door-frame) and Chowki (rectangular four-legged seat) and registered for such manufacturing as small scale industry unit. It uses electricity for making boards from the logs and then makes the aforesaid product. The Assessing Officer held the petitioner to be a manufacturer liable to pay tax. Aggrieved by the same, it preferred appeal, which was also dismissed. Thereafter revision was preferred before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal. The Commercial Taxes Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) held that the petitioner is a manufacturer and accordingly dismissed the revision application. 2. Petitioner then filed application under Section 48 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 to refer a question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal by its order dated 29.2.1996 acceded to its request and referred the following question of law for our determination: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner, who does sawing of timber logs using power and thereafter manufacturing furniture out of said timber without using power in one integrated process shall be deemed to be a manufacturer in view of Rule 2(9) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983." 4. Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in manufacturing furniture i.e. Chaukhat and Chowki, petitioner does not use power and as such cannot be deemed to be a manufacture and in this connection he has drawn our attention to Rule 2(9) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 , same reads as follows: "2. Definition.In these rules, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, xx xx xx xx (9) Any manufacturer or manufacturing process which does not use power as defined in clause (g) of Section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948 (Act 63 to 1948) shall not be deemed to be a manufacturer." 5. J.C to A.A.G. VII, however, contends that petitioner used electricity for making boards out of logs and thereafter made furniture and both being an integrated process, it cannot be said that no power was used in making furniture. 6. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Prasad. The Tribunal on fact has found that petitioner does sawing of timber logs using power and thereafter manufactures furniture out of such timber. 6. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Prasad. The Tribunal on fact has found that petitioner does sawing of timber logs using power and thereafter manufactures furniture out of such timber. This being one integrated process, it cannot be said that no power was used while making furniture. In our opinion, manufacturing of furniture involves several steps and in case those steps are integrated, merely the fact that at one step, power was not used, shall not take it out from the net of manufacturer by virtue of Rule 2(9) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983. 7. Accordingly, our answer to the question is that petitioner is a manufacturer and shall not come out from its net in view of definition of Rule 2(9) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 . 8. Reference is answered accordingly. 9. Tax case stands disposed off. 10. Let a copy of our opinion be forwarded to the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna.