- (1.) THE short question for consideration in this writ petition is whether the purchases made by the petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacture of footwears, chappals, etc. , are liable to tax under entry No. 32 of the notification dated September 7, 1981, which is as follows : " 32. Old, discarded, unserviceable or obsolete Sale to 8 per machinery, stores or vehicles including consumer cent. " waste products except cinder, coal ash and such items as are included in any other notification issued under the Act. THE case of the petitioner is that it has been purchasing old PVC shoes and chappals from various Kabaris, hawkers, etc. , which are converted into granules, which, in turn, is used as raw material for the manufactures of PVC footwears and chappals by the petitioner. It is contended that the old chappals purchased from kabaris, hawkers, etc. , do not constitute "waste products" in the case of the petitioner and, therefore, the entry 32 cannot be pressed into service by the respondent to assess the petitioner on the purchases of old PVC shoes and chappals. It is also contended that the sales of old PVC shoes and chappals are taxable as unclassified item either at the point of sale to importer or manufacturer under section 3-A (i) (e) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act (briefly, "the Act" ). If old PVC shoes and chappals purchased by the petitioner tantamount to waste products within the meaning of entry 32 of the notification dated September 7, 1981, then the sales will be liable to be taxed at the point of sale to consumer. We, therefore, proceed to consider the question whether the old PVC shoes and chappals purchased by the petitioner from the hawkers. Kabaris, etc. , can be said to be "waste products" within the meaning of entry 32 of the aforesaid notification. THE words "waste products" are not defined in the Act and, therefore, we have to take recourse to the dictionary meaning. In Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, Reprint Edition, 1973 at pages 1535 and 1536 the term "waste products" means as follows : " 'waste products' - means material produced in a process that is discarded on the completion of that process. " In Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Volume III, it means as follows : " 'waste products' - debris resulting from a process (as of manufacture), i. e. , of no further use to the system of producing it. " Further, in New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language, Deluxe Encyclopaedic Edition, 1987 at page 1111, it means as follows : " 'waste product' means refuse produced during or left over from a manufacturing process. " From the meaning of the words "waste product" as given in the above dictionaries, it appears, that waste product is a product that has gone waste in the manufacturing process or in other words what becomes waste for the manufacturer during the manufacturing process. In the case at hand, the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of footwears and chappals. THE old PVC shoes and chappals purchased by the petitioner from the kabaris, hawkers, etc. , are not the waste product of the petitioner, but they have been purchased by the petitioner from the kabaris, who in turn might have purchased them from the consumer or from elsewhere. THErefore, in no case the old PVC shoes and chappals purchased by the petitioner can be said to be the waste products of the petitioner and, therefore, the purchases thereof cannot be brought to tax under entry 32 of the notification dated September 7, 1981, that is, at the point of sale to consumer. Shri Diwedi, learned Additional Advocate-General, relying upon a decision of the learned single Judge in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Tribeni Tissues Ltd. 1991 UPTC 988, submits before us that it is not necessary that the old PVC shoes and chappals purchased by the petitioner should be waste products for the manufacturer and it is enough if they constitute "waste material". We are not impressed by this submission, inasmuch as, the words "waste product" and "waste material" have different connotations. When we talk of waste product then it is necessary to co-relate that with the manufacturing process of a manufacturer but the same is not necessary in the case of waste material. Anything lying waste may be said to be waste material but they cannot partake the character of being waste products. THEn Shri Diwedi argues that the facts of the case of Tribeni Tissues 1991 UPTC 988 are comparable to the facts of the case of instant petitioner. In para 9 at page 992, in the case of Tribeni Tissues 1991 UPTC 988, it is stated that the assessee, a branch of a paper mill, situate at Calcutta, purchased raw materials such as sun-hemp, raw jute, old hemp, rope cuttings, old jute rope cuttings and jute cuttings, etc. , for being used as a raw material in the manufacture of paper. In para 14 of that case, learned single Judge adverting to such purchases observed as follows : " Since the said products were of non-functional value and unuseful for the manufacturers and were also sold as such by the said manufacturers to the assessee I have no doubt left in my mind to hold that the goods involved in the present controversy and purchased by the assessee squarely fall within the meaning of the words old, discarded or unserviceable waste products. " (Emphasis [here italicised. ] supplied ). From the above observations, it clearly appears that the learned single Judge took the view on the premises that the purchases of rope cuttings, old jute rope cuttings and jute cuttings, etc. , were waste products and they were sold to Tribeni Tissues Ltd. (the petitioner) for being used as raw material in the manufacturing of paper. It is not stated in the judgment that after the manufacture of the rope cuttings, old jute rope cuttings and jute cuttings they were purchased by consumers and that they were sold by them to the manufacturer when they became old, unserviceable and useless. THE waste products of a manufacturer sold to another manufacturer either directly or through an intermediary will continue to retain the original character of waste products. So the facts in the case before us are entirely different, inasmuch as the petitioner has not purchased waste products from any manufacturer but simply purchased old PVC shoes and chappals from the hawkers, kabaris, etc. , for being converted into granules which is raw material for the manufacture of PVC footwears and chappals. THEn it is argued that the decision of the case of Tribeni Tissues 1991 UPTC 988 has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Balaji v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1993] 88 STC 98; 1993 UPTC 318. This submission, in our view, is of no use, inasmuch as the facts of the case of Tribeni Tissues 1991 UPTC 988 were entirely different. Section 35 (1) (c) of the Act, when properly read, says that if any question arises, otherwise than in a proceeding pending before a court or before an assessing authority under section 7 or section 21, whether, for the purposes of this Act any transaction is a sale or purchase and, if so, the sale or purchase price, as the case may be, therefore the dealer concerned may submit an application to the Commissioner. Sub-section (5) of section 35 further states that except as provided in sub-section (3), a decision given by the Commissioner under this section shall, subject to the provisions of sections 10 and 11 be final and binding on the applicant, the assessing authority and the appellate authority. Relying on it, Sri Bharatji Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that unless the order passed by the Commissioner under section 35 is set aside in appeal or otherwise, that would remain in force and would continue to be binding on the assessing authority and, therefore, the impugned notices contrary to the order of the Commissioner passed under section 35, cannot be issued under section 21 of the Act by the assessing authority. For this reason, it is submitted that if the order of the Commissioner runs counter to the law laid down by the Supreme Court under article 141, then the order of the Commissioner passed under section 35 can be overlooked. As already pointed out, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Balaji [1993] 88 STC 98 does rest on different facts and that cannot be said to be the law laid down under article 141 for the purposes of this case at hand. THE assessing authority issued impugned notices dated March 28, 1995 (annexure "3" to the writ petition) for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 taking the view that the purchases of the old PVC shoes and chappals constitute the purchases of waste products in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Balaji [1993] 88 STC 98. In the light of the foregoing decision, we hold that the impugned notices dated March 28, 1995 (annexure "3" to the writ petition) relating to the aforesaid years are not legal and are, therefore, liable to be quashed. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned notices dated March 28, 1995 (annexure "3" to the writ petition) relating to the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 are quashed. Petition allowed. .;