Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) AS agreed by learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to decide the matter finally at this stage under the rules of the Court. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE only question up for consideration is, whether item manufactured by revisionist -assessee (hereinafter referred to as "assessee") would be covered by entry "Edible oils & oilcake" at serial No. 687 or "Vegetable oil" at serial No. 2331 in the Schedule of Rates under Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The first appellate authority, though has held that commodity produced by assessee is covered by term "Edible oil and edible vegetable ghee" hence taxable accordingly but it has been reversed by Tribunal on very strange and surprising reasons, which are irrelevant to the question up for consideration before it or otherwise were of no consequence at all. The Tribunal has observed that assessee claims to be manufacturing different exclusive item using different ingredients natural and otherwise. However, it does not mean that assessee was manufacturing something, which was not covered by aforesaid entries.
(3.) IT is not the understanding of the parties or the way they address or term it but in order to understand whether a particular commodity or goods is covered by a particular entry in the fiscal statute, the nature and substance of that commodity has to be considered vis -a -vis appropriate entry and assessee's conduct and his individual understanding as such would not be material unless and until it can be shown that item is such, which is covered by more than one entries and in that case, some other principles of interpretation relating to taxing entries may be applied like doctrine of common parlance, dictionary meaning etc.;