Mastication of rubber does not create a new commodity; masticated rubber is outside the taxable schedule entry.

Masticated rubber was held not to become a new and distinct commercial commodity merely because it had undergone processing. Applying the principle that manufacture requires a transformation into an article with a different identity in common parlance, the Court found that mastication only changed the form of rubber and did not create a separate rubber product. As a result, masticated rubber did not fall within item 41 of the Schedule to the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, and sales of such goods were not taxable under the Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether masticated rubber or mixed compound is a rubber product falling within item 41 of the Schedule to the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, and therefore liable to sales tax.

Analysis: The relevant enquiry was whether the process of mastication transformed rubber into a new and distinct commercial commodity, or whether the processed article continued to retain its essential identity as rubber. Applying the settled principle that a commodity is treated as manufactured only when processing results in a new and distinct article with a different identity in common parlance, the Court held that mere change in form or name is not enough. On the materials before it, masticated rubber remained a processed form of rubber and did not become a separate rubber product.

Conclusion: Masticated rubber is not a rubber product within item 41 of the Schedule and sales thereof are not taxable under the Act. The assessee succeeds.

---