Manufacture requires a new commercially distinct commodity; tinting base paint with colourants did not meet that test.

Mixing base paint with colourants to obtain a desired shade did not amount to manufacture under the U.P. Trade Tax Act because the process did not bring a new commercially recognisable commodity into existence. The Court applied the settled test that manufacture requires emergence of a distinct article different from the original goods; mere tinting, variation, or finishing is insufficient. On the expert evidence, the base paint remained paint after tinting and could still be used as paint in common parlance, so the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the process of mixing base paint with colourants to obtain a desired shade amounts to 'manufacture' under Section 2(e-1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The decisive test is whether the process results in the emergence of a new commercially recognizable commodity or merely changes the form, shade, or finishing of an existing product. The expert report accepted by the Court stated that the base paint remained paint even after tinting, that tinting did not bring a new or different product into existence, and that the base paint could itself be used as paint. Applying the settled principle that mere variation, processing, or finishing does not constitute manufacture unless a new and different article emerges, the Court held that the tinted paint remained only paint in common parlance.

Conclusion: The process did not amount to manufacture, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The law was applied to hold that tinting or mixing of base paint with colourants, without emergence of a new commercial commodity, is not manufacture under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: A process amounts to manufacture only if it produces a new commercially recognizable article distinct from the original goods; mere mixing or tinting that leaves the product as the same commodity does not satisfy that test.

---