P. P. NAOLEKAR, J. - (1.) THE order in the revision shall also dispose of S. B. Sales Tax Revision No. 289 of 1991. THE petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and is carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of aluminium foils/sheets. THE company has its registered office at Pipalia Kalan, District Pali, in the State of Rajasthan. For the assessment year 1985-86 for the period July 1, 1984 to June 30, 1985 and for the assessment years 1982 to 1984 from July 1, 1982 to June 30, 1984, the respondent has passed an ex parte assessment order exercising powers under section 9 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with section 10 of he Rajasthan Sales ax Act. THE assessing authority held that the sale of foils by the petitioner is not covered under the head "non-ferrous sheets" as mentioned in the notification dated December 31, 1975, issued by the State Government under section 8 (5) of the Central Sales Tax Act and the petitioner was accordingly assessed on the inter-State sale of aluminium foils/sheets at 4 per cent and not at 1 per cent as per the notification dated December 31, 1975.
(2.) BEING aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner challenged the same by filing an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jodhpur, challenging the levy of tax at 4 per cent in place of 1 per cent on the inter-State sale of foils/sheets. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dismissed the petitioner's appeal vide its order dated September 26, 1988. Being aggrieved with the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer. The Tribunal has remanded the matter to the assessing authority for determination of the dispute regarding the reduced rate of tax and consequent liability of the petitioner as per the notification dated December 31, 1975, after giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. However, while remanding the matter, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that so far as the varieties above the thickness of 0. 15 mm. are concerned, they are not included in the definition given in the Central Excise Act at the relevant time and thus the varieties above the thickness of 0. 15 mm. are not foils and are entitled for reduced rate of tax under the notification being sheet. Regarding the variety of thickness below of 0. 15 mm. The assessee must prove to substantiate his claim for reduced rate of tax that they are commonly known as sheets. The Tribunal has remanded the matter on the ground that no evidence has been led by parties as to whether the items involved in the case are covered under the notification being sheets or are commonly known as foils, which are different than sheets. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the notification dated December 31, 1975, is wide enough to include aluminium foil in the item "sheet"; scope and ambit of the meaning to the item, cannot be restricted on the basis of its use or the manner of production. The notification covers all types of sheets, thus, foil, which is nothing but a thin sheet is included in the notification. On the other hand, the counsel for the department, urged that the foil is a different commodity than sheet as is clear from the later notification issued by the State on June 13, 1985, providing exemption from sales tax over the foil for the period of 5 years. For the proper consideration of the arguments advanced by the counsel appearing for the respective parties, it is necessary to reproduce the notification dated December 31, 1975, which reads as under : " S. No. 302 : F. 5 (25)FD/ct/72-29 dated December 31, 1975. S. O. 243.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956) the State Government being satisfied that it is necessary so to to in the public interest, hereby directs that with effect on and from the 1st day of January, 1976, the tax payable under sub-section (1) of the said section by any dealer having his place of business in the State, in respect of the sale by him from any such place of business in the course of inter-State trade, of the goods specified in column number 2 of the list appended hereto, to which sub-section (1) applies, shall be calculated at the reduced rate shown against it in column number 3 of the said list. S. No. Description of goods Rate of tax (1) (2) (3) 1. Non-ferrous rods, pipes, strips, sections, 1% sheets, circles and tubings. For previous reference, see S. No. 254 dated April 26, 1972. Also see S. No. 316 dated May 20, 1976. " The notification dated December 31, 1975, was issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, providing the reduced rate of sales tax from January 1, 1976, in respect of the sale made by a dealer in the course of inter-State trade for the goods specified, i. e. , non-ferrous rods, pipes, strips, sections, sheets, circles and tubings. The reduced rate of sales tax which is payable on these items is 1 per cent. The question in this case is whether the aluminium foils manufactured by the petitioner are the non-ferrous sheets. The nomenclature is not determinative or conclusive of the nature of the goods, which will have to be determined by the application of certain well established principles, guiding the matter. The canon of construction to be involved in these types of statute has been repeatedly enunciated in several decisions of the apex Court. In Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal & Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1988] 68 STC 324 (SC); (1988) Supp SCC 232, their Lordships have observed as under : " In a taxing statute words which are not technical expressions or works of art, but are words of everyday use, must be understood and given a meaning not in their technical or scientific sense, but in a sense as understood in common parlance, i. e. , 'that sense which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing, would attribute to it'. Such words must be understood in their 'popular sense'. The particular terms used by the Legislature in the denomination of articles are to be understood according to the common, commercial understanding of those terms used and not in their scientific and technical sense 'for the Legislature does not suppose our merchants to the naturalists or geologists or botanists'. " The word sheet is not technical in expression or a word of art but the word of everyday use. How the goods is known in the trade and treated in the trade literature, are the relevant and significant and rather decisive factors. If special type of goods is subject-matter of a fiscal entry then that entry must be understood in the context of that particular trade, bearing in mind that particular word. The trade meaning is one which is prevalent in that particular trade where the goods is known or traded. Therefore, in the absence of any definition of the word "sheet", whether it would include all types of foils, depends as it is understood in a common parlance, that is, how the public in general conversant with the subject-matter has dealt with it and understood. The word is being required to be given a popular meaning. In the present case, the Tribunal has observed that no evidence has been led by the parties so as to understand the popular meaning of "sheet" by the persons carrying on business in non-ferrous metal and thus, remanded the matter giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on that point. In my considered opinion, the approach of the Tribunal is correct. Whether the foil is included in the commodity mentioned in the notification, depends on the facts proved in this case. I do not find any illegality committed by the Tribunal in remanding the matter, where both the parties will have opportunity to lead evidence and establish the fact as to how the commodity "foil" is understood by the persons dealing with the commodity. In the result thereof, this revision fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;