Judgment :- V. RAMASWAMI, J. The petitioners in these cases are the manufacturers of Woodward's Gripe Water, Williams After Shave Lotion, Williams Lactric Shave, Metalin Oral, and allied products. They are carrying on business in the State of Tamil Nadu. For the asst. yrs. 1961-62 to 1967-68, they submitted their returns under the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ST Act). They had collected the tax payable on the taxable turnover. Their returns were accepted and assessment orders were made on various dates. 2. Prior to 1st June, 1961, the excise duty on medicinal and toilet preparations was levied under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 3. On 31st December, 1968, the petitioners filed two petitions before the Dy. CIT, Tambaram, who was the Assessing Authority, for refund of the tax paid by them in respect of the asst. yrs. 1961-62 to 1967-68. In these petitions, they claimed that the products sold by them contained alcohol and were exempt from tax under S. 8 r/w item 3 of the III Schedule to the ST Act and they have been submitting their returns in respect of the these goods and paying the sales tax as they were not aware, at that time, that the goods were exempt under the provision. They also claimed that they came to know of the correct legal position only in January, 1968. It was further submitted by them that since the payments were made on a mistake of law, the Government cannot appropriate the amounts and that they were entitled for refund of the tax paid. They also relied on the decision of the AAC, in the case of Messrs. T. T. Krishnamachari & Company. 4. The AO rejected these petitions. The appeals filed by the petitioners were also dismissed by the AAC, as filed out of time, on a mistaken impression that the appeals were against the original assessment orders themselves. 5. On further appeal, since there is no provision in the ST Act, or the Rules framed thereunder, for refund of sales tax assessed and collected, the Tribunal treated these petitions as filed under S. 55 of the ST Act for rectification of the assessment orders. The petitions relating to the asst. yrs. 1961-62 to 1963-64 were dismissed by the Tribunal as filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under S. 55. The petitions relating to the asst. yrs. 1961-62 to 1963-64 were dismissed by the Tribunal as filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under S. 55. In respect of the petitions relating to the asst. yrs. 1964-65 to 1966-67, the Tribunal held that there was no error or mistake of law apparent on the face of the record, which could have been rectified under S. 55 and in that view, dismissed those petitions as well. 6. These four tax revision cases related to the rectification petitions for the asst. yrs. 1964-65 to 1966-67, which were dismissed on the ground that there was no error or mistake of law apparent on the face of the records. 7. Under S. 8, r/w item 3 of the III Schedule to the ST Act, a dealer who deals in "any goods on which duty is levied or leviable under the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937, (Central Act 1 of 1978), on the entire quantity of such goods and not merely on any ingredient, which forms part of such goods" shall not be liable to pay any tax in respect of such goods. The Tribunal dealt with the question as if the goods were exempt under this provision and proceed to consider whether the provisions of S. 55 is attracted and held, as already stated, that there was no error, or mistake of law on the face of the record, which could be rectified under that provision. 8. But, in these petitions, the learned Government Pleader contended that the goods were not all exempt under S. 8 r/w item 3 of the III Schedule and they were correctly assessed. It has, therefore, become necessary to deal with the question as to whether these goods were exempt at all. 9. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that Woodward's Gripe Water, Williams After Shave Lotion, Williams Lactric Shave, Metalin Oral and allied products manufactured by the petitioners were 'liquor' within the meaning of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937, The excise duty on the manufacture of these goods were levied and leviable under S. 18A of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937. On and from 1st April, 1957, such duty is levied or leviable under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 10. On and from 1st April, 1957, such duty is levied or leviable under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 10. Per contra, the learned Government pleader contended that the ST Act was enacted and came into force in 1959, long after the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 11. We are proceeding to consider these rival contentions on the assumption that the goods manufactured by the petitioners contained alcohol and, therefore, satisfied the definition of 'liquor' under the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937. But, we want to make it clear that the learned Government Pleader did not concede this point, though the Tribunal also proceeded on the basis that these goods satisfied the definition of 'liquor' under the Prohibition Act, 1937. In these preparations were 'liquor' within the meaning of that definition, the excise duty should have been levied under S. 18A of Madras Prohibition Act, 1937, in respect of the manufacture of these goods. 12. Item 40 of the List II in the VII Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, conferred legislative power on the State legislatures to levy duties of excise on medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol, manufactured or produced in the State. In exercise of this power, many State legislatures had, prior to the Constitution, enacted laws imposing excise duty on these goods. Some States has enacted separate laws on Excise and some others had made these levies as part of their Prohibition Acts. 13. So far as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, S. 18A was inserted by Madras Act 19 of 1948 in the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937 authorising levy of excise duty. The relevant portion this section reads as follows :- "An excise duty or countervailing duty of such amount as the State Government may, by notification in the Fort St. George Gazette especially from time to time shall, if they so direct, be levied on all liquors and intoxicating drugs permitted to be imported, exported, transported manufactured, issued from manufactory or institution sold under the provisions of this Act or any rule notification licence or permit issued thereunder." * 14. Under the Constitution, the duties of excise on medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol manufactured or produced in India had now been made a Central subject. Under the Constitution, the duties of excise on medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol manufactured or produced in India had now been made a Central subject. But, Art. 277 provided that any duties which immediately before the commencement of the Constitution were being lawfully levied by the Government of any State, notwithstanding that those duties are now mentioned in the Union List, may be continued, to be levied until provision to the contrary is made by Parliament by law. Thus, until Parliament made any law relating to the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations, the States were permitted to continue the levies of excise on such preparations which they were levying immediately before the commencement of the Constitution. In order to secure uniformity in the rates of excise duty and for uniform procedure for a collection therefor, in exercise of its legislative power under the Constitution, the Parliament enacted the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955. Sec. 21 of this Act which repealed the corresponding provisions in the State Acts read as follows : "21. Repeals and savings :-If, immediately before the commencement of this Act there is in force in any States any law corresponding to this Act, that law is hereby repealed : Provided that all rules made, notifications issued, licences or permits granted, powers conferred under any law hereby repealed shall, so far as they are not inconsistent with this Act, have the same force and effect as if they had been respectively made, issued, granted or conferred under this Act and by the authority empowered hereby in that behalf." * Thus, excise duties are now levied or leviable under this Act only on and from 1st April, 1957 when the Act came into force. 15. The duties of excise under S. 3(2) of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 are leviable, where the dutiable goods are manufactured in bond, in the State in which such goods are released from bonded warehouse for home consumption, where such State is the State of manufacture or not, and in other cases the States in which such goods are manufactured. 16. In these cases, it was not the case of the petitioners that the goods are manufactured in bond. Therefore, it is the State of Tamil Nadu, in which the goods are manufactured, that is entitled to levy the duty. 16. In these cases, it was not the case of the petitioners that the goods are manufactured in bond. Therefore, it is the State of Tamil Nadu, in which the goods are manufactured, that is entitled to levy the duty. Thus on and from 1st April, 1957, the excise duties are levied or leviable on these goods in this State, under the Medicinal & Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955. Sec. 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which was relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his argument that any excise duty levied or leviable under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, should be equated or deemed to be an excise duty levied or leviable under the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937, reads as follows : "Where this Act, or and Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals and re-enacts, with or without modification, any provision of a former enactment, or in any instrument to the provision so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as references to the provision so re-enacted" * 17. The scope of this section came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Sukh Dev Sarup Gupta It was held that the words "former enactment" in S. 8 refers to both a Central Act or a provision thereunder, as also a State Act or a provision contained therein. It follows, therefore, that to the repeal of S. 18A in so far as it imposed the duty on Medicinal and Toilet Preparations and the re-enactment of that levy in the Medicinal & Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, the provision of S. 8 is applicable. But, the difficulty is in understanding the enactment which is referred to in the words "references in any other enactment or in any instrument to the provisions so repealed" in that section. There could be no doubt that this reference is to the enactment which came to be made between the "former enactment", which was repealed and the Repealing and Re-enacting Central Act. The decision of the Supreme Court referred to above also related to such a case. There could be no doubt that this reference is to the enactment which came to be made between the "former enactment", which was repealed and the Repealing and Re-enacting Central Act. The decision of the Supreme Court referred to above also related to such a case. But, in the instant case, S. 18A in the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937 was repealed by the Medicinal & Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, but the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959, which referred to the duty levied or leviable under the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937, came into force subsequent to the repeal of S. 18A. 18. The point for consideration is whether the reference to the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937, in the ST Act can be construed as a reference to the Prohibition Act as it was in force prior to the repeal of s. 18-A. 19. Thiru V. K. T. Chari, learned counsel for the petitioner, while accepting normally "reference in any other enactment" referred to in S. 8, would comprehend within it an enactment which came between the enactment repealed and the Central Act which repealed that and re-enacted, contended that there is an exception to this normal rule of interpretation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, if the repeal is not of the whole Act, and was only a provision, "then any reference to the former enactment" in any subsequent enactment, whether such subsequent enactment was made prior or after the repealing and re-enacting Act, should be construed as a reference to the provisions so re-enacted. 20. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. When the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959, referred to the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937, in the III Schedule, it can only be a reference to the Act as it was in force on the date when the ST Act came into force. There is no possibility of reading the provisions as referring to the Madras Prohibition Act as in force in any other date. Thus, in item 3 of the III Schedule, reference to the Prohibition Act, could not be interpreted as the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937, as was in force prior to the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955. When an Act is repealed and re-enacted, nobody will refer to the repealed Act in any subsequent enactment. Thus, in item 3 of the III Schedule, reference to the Prohibition Act, could not be interpreted as the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937, as was in force prior to the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955. When an Act is repealed and re-enacted, nobody will refer to the repealed Act in any subsequent enactment. Nor is it possible to read the provisions of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act into the Madras Prohibition Act. 21. We have, therefore, held that the reference to the Madras Prohibition Act in item 3 of the III Schedule, is to the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, as in force on the date when the ST Act came into force and not on any date earlier. On the date when the ST Act came into force, the excise duty leviable under S. 18A had already been repealed and, therefore, if the legislature wanted to exempt any goods that are subject to excise duty under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, the legislature should have made a specific reference in item 3. In fact, in 1972, by a notification the Government have exempted those goods, which have been subjected to excise duty under the Medicinal & Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, from the levy of sales-tax. But that notification not applicable to the assessment years in question. 22. We are, therefore, of opinion that the Medicinal & Toilet Preparations manufactured by the assessee were not entitled to the exemption under S. 8 of the ST Act. 23. Since we have come to the conclusion that the goods are not at all exempt from levy of sales-tax, the further question whether there was any error or mistake of law on the face of the record, which could only be on the basis that the goods are exempt, does not arise. 24. For the fore-going reasons, we dismiss these cases with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 150/- in each.