Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. v. State of Bombay

10 STC 500High Court1959#7176 most cited

What is Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. v. State of Bombay authority for?

The mixing of different brands of tea without the application of any mechanical or chemical process does not constitute 'manufacture' or 'processing'. This precedent was later distinguished by the Supreme Court in Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that blending of ore did amount to processing.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. v. State of Bombay · 10 STC 500 · manufacture · processing · tea mixture · Bombay Sales Tax Act · 1953 · mechanical process · chemical process

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 33BSection 80IB(2)(iv)Section 80IBSection 80IB(2)

Judgments citing Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. v. State of Bombay

Jaydeep Petro Chem Co. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 180/CHNY/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.179/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2006-07 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2007-08 Jaydeep Petro Chem Company Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Corporate Ward-2(3), No.24/13, Iii Floor, Chennai. Brindavan Majestic Apartments, Thygarayanagar H.O, Thygarayanagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aaacj9244J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Baskar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 263Section 80I

…sses as may be prescribed." 10. The said definition is in pari materia with the definition of manufacture which is under consideration. ThisCourt also referred to a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. v. State ofBombay (1959) 10 STC 500 (BOM HC) ("Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co.") wherein the very process of theassessee therein purchasing in bulk different brands of tea and without the application of any mechanical orchemical process mixing up the brands of tea so purchased and selling it as a tea mixture, came up forconsideration on a reference before the Bombay High Court wher…

Jaydeep Petro Chem Co. Pvt.Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 179/CHNY/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.179/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2006-07 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2007-08 Jaydeep Petro Chem Company Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Corporate Ward-2(3), No.24/13, Iii Floor, Chennai. Brindavan Majestic Apartments, Thygarayanagar H.O, Thygarayanagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aaacj9244J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Baskar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 263Section 80I

…sses as may be prescribed." 10. The said definition is in pari materia with the definition of manufacture which is under consideration. ThisCourt also referred to a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. v. State ofBombay (1959) 10 STC 500 (BOM HC) ("Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co.") wherein the very process of theassessee therein purchasing in bulk different brands of tea and without the application of any mechanical orchemical process mixing up the brands of tea so purchased and selling it as a tea mixture, came up forconsideration on a reference before the Bombay High Court wher…

DCIT CC 3(2) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Vivek Mehrotra, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2171/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi (DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 80I

…chemical composition or integral structure. 5.11 In Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 653 Hon‟ble Supreme Court, after considering the judgment of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. Vs. State of Bombay (1959) 10 STC 500 (Bom.), clearly observed on the question whether the blending of ore, whilst loading it in the ship by means of the mechanical ore handling plant, constituted „manufacture or processing or ore for sale within the meaning of section 8(3)(b) and Rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Dealing with this question, their lordships held and observed…

DCIT CC 3(2) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Vivek Mehrotra, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed, in the terms indicated above

ITA 2175/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…chemical composition or integral structure. 5.11 In Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 653 Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. Vs. State of Bombay (1959) 10 STC 500 (Bom.), clearly observed on the question whether the blending of ore, whilst loading it in the ship by means of the mechanical ore handling plant, constituted ‘manufacture or processing or ore for sale within the meaning of section 8(3)(b) and Rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Dealing with this question, their lordships held and observed…

DCIT CC 3(2) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Vivek Mehrotra, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed, in the terms indicated above

ITA 2174/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…chemical composition or integral structure. 5.11 In Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 653 Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. Vs. State of Bombay (1959) 10 STC 500 (Bom.), clearly observed on the question whether the blending of ore, whilst loading it in the ship by means of the mechanical ore handling plant, constituted ‘manufacture or processing or ore for sale within the meaning of section 8(3)(b) and Rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Dealing with this question, their lordships held and observed…

DCIT CC 3(2) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Vivek Mehrotra, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed, in the terms indicated above

ITA 2173/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…chemical composition or integral structure. 5.11 In Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 653 Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. Vs. State of Bombay (1959) 10 STC 500 (Bom.), clearly observed on the question whether the blending of ore, whilst loading it in the ship by means of the mechanical ore handling plant, constituted ‘manufacture or processing or ore for sale within the meaning of section 8(3)(b) and Rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Dealing with this question, their lordships held and observed…

ACIT, Cir-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 48/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara & Sri M. Balaganesh) Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…elevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this respective are quoted and set out herein below for ready reference: "7. The Revenue however relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. Vs. State of Bombay [10 STC 500 (Bom HC)]. The assessees in this case were registered dealers in tea under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 and they purchased in bulk diverse brands of tea and without the application of any mechanical or chemical process blended these brands of different qualities according to a certain formula evolved by them and sold the tea mixture in the marke…

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1965/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…elevant observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this respective are quoted and set out herein below for ready reference: “7. The Revenue however relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. Vs. State of Bombay [10 STC 500 (Bom HC)]. The assessees in this case were registered dealers in tea under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 and they purchased in bulk diverse brands of tea and without the application of any mechanical or chemical process blended these brands of different qualities according to a certain formula evolved by them and sold the tea mixture in the marke…

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…elevant observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this respective are quoted and set out herein below for ready reference: “7. The Revenue however relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. Vs. State of Bombay [10 STC 500 (Bom HC)]. The assessees in this case were registered dealers in tea under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 and they purchased in bulk diverse brands of tea and without the application of any mechanical or chemical process blended these brands of different qualities according to a certain formula evolved by them and sold the tea mixture in the marke…

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1963/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…elevant observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this respective are quoted and set out herein below for ready reference: “7. The Revenue however relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. Vs. State of Bombay [10 STC 500 (Bom HC)]. The assessees in this case were registered dealers in tea under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 and they purchased in bulk diverse brands of tea and without the application of any mechanical or chemical process blended these brands of different qualities according to a certain formula evolved by them and sold the tea mixture in the marke…

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Circle-3(2), Gangtok vs. M/S Unicorn Industries, Sikkim

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1962/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…elevant observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this respective are quoted and set out herein below for ready reference: “7. The Revenue however relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. Vs. State of Bombay [10 STC 500 (Bom HC)]. The assessees in this case were registered dealers in tea under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 and they purchased in bulk diverse brands of tea and without the application of any mechanical or chemical process blended these brands of different qualities according to a certain formula evolved by them and sold the tea mixture in the marke…

Asst.C.I.T., Bellary vs. M/S Hothur Traders 100% Eou, Bellary

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for asst

ITA 32/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazita No.32/Bang/2016 (Asst. Years 2010-11 & 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Bellary. . Appellant Vs. M/S Hothur Traders 100% Eou, No.85,6,7&8, Infantry Road, Cantonment, Bellary. . Respondent Pan –Aaefh7705H. Co No.55/Bang/2016 (By Assessee) Appellant By : Shri Nagendra Prasad, Cit Respondent By : Shri B.S Balachandran, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 22-11-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-01-2018

For Appellant: Shri Nagendra Prasad, CITFor Respondent: Shri B.S Balachandran, Advocate
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 40

…56. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the said judgment, did not consider the expression "manufacture" since the question was decided only on the expression "processing". However, considering the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Nilgiri Tea Co. [1959] 10 STC 500, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, for the purpose of producing a tea mixture of a different kind and quality according to a formula evolved by them, there *was plainly and indubitably processing of the different brands of tea, because these brands of tea experienced, as a result of a qualitative change, in that the tea mixture which came into…

Biswajit Das, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 493/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 10Section 10BSection 2

…chemical composition or integral structure. 43.5 In Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 653 Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. Vs. State of Bombay (1959) 10 STC 500 (Bom.), clearly observed on the question whether the blending of ore, whilst loading it in the ship by means of the mechanical ore handling plant, constituted 'manufacture or processing or ore for sale within the meaning of section 8(3)(b) and Rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Dealing with this question, their lordships held and observed…

ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhubaneswar vs. Biswajit Das, Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 473/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 10Section 10BSection 2

…chemical composition or integral structure. 43.5 In Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 653 Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. Vs. State of Bombay (1959) 10 STC 500 (Bom.), clearly observed on the question whether the blending of ore, whilst loading it in the ship by means of the mechanical ore handling plant, constituted 'manufacture or processing or ore for sale within the meaning of section 8(3)(b) and Rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Dealing with this question, their lordships held and observed…

Commnr. of Income Tax, Kerala vs. M/S. Tara Agencies

Appeal is allowed and the

C.A. No.-003568-003568 - 2001Supreme Court09 Jul 2007
For Respondent: M/s Tara Agencies
Section 35B

…tinent to mention that reference of Chowgule\022s case acquires greater significance because, in that case, this Court dealt with a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. v. State of Bombay (1959) 10 STC 500. This Court observed that the judgment of the Bombay High Court did not lay down the correct law because it held that the activity of the assessee did not amount to processing. 33. Details of relevant Statute are as under: Section 8 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, so http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Pag…

Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. v. State of Bombay (10 STC 500) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax