The judgment of the court was delivered by

MADON, J. - The respondents carry on the business of selling what is known as "French Coffee". The activities of the respondents consist of purchasing coffee seeds, roasting and grinding them and preparing coffee powder out of these seeds. The respondents also purchase ready-made chicory powder and thereafter mix and blend the coffee powder prepared by them with chicory powder purchased by them and produce a mixture commercially known as "French Coffee". The proportion in which coffee powder and chicory powder are mixed is equal. The tins in which the respondents' French Coffee is sold bear labels carrying the legend that coffee is blended with chicory and that the mixture consists of 50 per cent coffee and 50 per cent chicory.

By their letter dated 3rd February, 1966, the respondents produced a bill for the sale of French Coffee to one of the their customers in which they had not recovered from the customer sales tax on such sale, treating the said sale as a resale. By the said letter, after setting out in what manner French Coffee was prepared by them, they applied to the Commissioner of Sales Tax to determine under section 52(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, whether the sale of French Coffee by them constituted resale of the goods purchased by them. The argument advanced on behalf of the respondents before the Deputy Commissioner was that when they sold French Coffee they resold goods without there being any manufacture or processing of any goods by them. Rejecting this contention the Deputy Commissioner held that the mixing of pure coffee powder with chicory powder amounted to a process and was covered by the definition of the term "manufacture" contained in clause (17) of section 2 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The respondents thereupon filed an appeal to the Sales Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that though the character of coffee was changed because 50 per cent chicory powder was added to it, there was no alteration so far as the goods were concerned. The Tribunal further observed :

"No doubt, by mixing up coffee with chicory what has resulted is the new mixture, in which some of the original components might have been merged, but there is no alteration and, accordingly, there is no manufacture as has been defined in the Act."

Arising out of this order of the Tribunal, a case has been stated and the following question referred to us at the instance of the assessee :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the process of mixing and blending of coffee powder with chicory powder so as to obtain the product known as French Coffee does not amount to 'manufacture' within the meaning of the definition of 'manufacture' under section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?"

In our view, this question is not properly worded because the question as framed would appear to answer itself. The definition of "manufacture" contained in clause (17) of the said section 2 includes processing goods. According to the judgment given by the Tribunal, mixing and blending of coffee powder and chicory powder did not amount to a process. If, however, it was a process, the only answer which could be given would be that it constituted "manufacture" within the meaning of the said definition. Both the learned counsel are agreed upon this position and, accordingly, we reframe the question as follows so as to bring out the real controversy between the parties :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the mixing and blending of coffee powder with chicory powder so as to obtain the product known as French Coffee does not amount to 'manufacture' within the meaning of the definition of 'manufacture' contained in clause (17) of section 2 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?"

The terms "manufacture" and "process" with their grammatical variatio