Satish Chandra, J.— Present revision under section 58 of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.08.2008 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow in Appeal No. 04 of 2008. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the processing and sale of Supari (betel nut). The assessee has moved an application before the Commissioner under Section 59 of the VAT Act to know the rate of tax on Sweet Supari (Betel Nut). The Commissioner vide order dated 25.02.2008 observed that the tax is liveable @12.5% on the sweet supari because it was mixed with the liquid Glucose, Sacrine Soda, Sugar, Paraffin Oil, Peppermint, Perfume etc. Not being satisfied, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal, who vide its impugned order observed that the tax is liveable @4% as per schedule II Sl. No.9 of the VAT Act. Being aggrieved, the department has filed the present revision. 3. With this background, heard Sri Sanjeev Shankdhar, learned Standing Counsel for the department and Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ratnesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the assessee - opposite party. 4. After hearing both the parties and on perusal on record, it appears that in the instant case, the assessee is processing and selling different types of Supari (betel nut). The Sweet Supari has been prepared without involving any machine, mixture or grinder. Thus, it does not amount to manufacture as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Forbes Ewart and Figgis P. Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 762 Kerala. 5. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Crane Betel Nut Powder Works vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise and another; 2007 (142) ECR 0418 SC has observed that : "In our view, the process of manufacture employed by the appellant-company did not change the nature of the end product, which in the words of the Tribunal, was that in the end product the 'betel nut remains a betel nut'. The said observation of the Tribunal depicts the status of the product prior to manufacture and thereafter. In those circumstances, the views expressed in the D.C.M. General Mills Ltd.(supra) and the passage from the American Judgment (supra) become meaningful. The said observation of the Tribunal depicts the status of the product prior to manufacture and thereafter. In those circumstances, the views expressed in the D.C.M. General Mills Ltd.(supra) and the passage from the American Judgment (supra) become meaningful. The observation that manufacture implies a change, but every change is not manufacture and yet every change of an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation is apposite to the situation at hand. The process involved in the manufacture of sweetened betel nut pieces does not result in the manufacture of a new product as the end product continues to retain its original character though in a modified form. 6. In our view, the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) has correctly analysed the factual as well as the legal situation in arriving at the conclusion that the process of cutting betel nuts into small pieces and addition of essential/non-essential oils, menthol, sweetening agent etc. did not result in a new and distinct product having a different character and use." 7. In the instant case, the product remained the same and after the process, no new product or thing was manufactured as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Venketeswara Hatcheries 237 ITR 174 SC and CIT vs. Relish Food 237 ITR 59 SC. 8. In view of above discussion and by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, who has rightly observed that Meethi Supari is another form of Betel Nut, which is mentioned at serial no.9 of Schedule II of Value Added Tax Act. So, the order of the Tribunal is hereby sustained along with reasons mentioned therein. 9. In the result, the revision filed by the Department is dismissed. _____________