C.S.P. Singh, J.
1. The following question of law was referred by the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Gorakhpur :
Whether the mixing of scents in ordinary til oil amounts to manufacture of perfumed hair-oil
2. The assessing authority recorded a finding that the assessee purchased oil and after adding scent to it sold it as hair-oil. The appellate authority accepted the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee that mere addi-sion of scent does not bring out a different commodity. Aggrieved by the view taken by the appellate authority the Commissioner, Sales Tax, filed revision, which was dismissed. The Judge (Revisions) recorded the following finding :
As held in Harbilas Rai's case  21 S.T.C. 17 (SC.) referred to above, the word 'manufacture' has various shades of meaning and, in the context of the sales tax legislation, if the goods to which some labour is applied remain essentially the same commercial article it cannot be said that the final product is the result of manufacture. The process of adding scent to ordinary til oil did not bring about a new commodity.
3. We have heard Sri B. D. Agarwal, Chief Standing Counsel. He has placed reliance on a decision reported in Gael Industries Private Ltd. v. Commissioner, Sales Tax 1971 U.P.T.C. 796. The test applied in this case was of common experience. There is no evidence on the record to show that the oil underwent some change by addition of scent. The question whether the hair-oil sold by the assessee as a result of addition of scent became a new commercial commodity, applying the test of user or common experience, is essentially a question of fact. In the absence of any positive material, we do not think that the view taken by the Judge (Revisions) is erroneous. We answer the question in the negative against the Commissioner, Sales Tax, and in favour of the assessee by saying that in the circumstances of the case mixing of scents in ordinary til oil does not amount to manufacture of perfumed hair-oil. There shall be no order as to costs.