Judgment :- V. RAMASWAMI, J. In these two tax cases a common question of law is raised, though one case is in respect of the assessment under the Tamil Nadu General Sales-tax, 1959, and the other under the Central ST Act, 2. The assessees are dealers in cotton bandings and cotton ropes. In the assessment proceedings the assessees claimed a certain turnover relating to bandings and ropes as exempt under s. 8 r/w Item 4 of the Third Schedule insofar as the assessment under the Tamil Nadu General ST Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is concerned, and under s. 9(2) r/w s. 8-A of the Central ST Act so far as the assessment under the Central ST Act is concerned. The AO held that the bandings and ropes sold by the assesses are textiles within the meaning of item 4 of the Third Schedule to the Act and that, therefore, the turnover relating to the same is entitled to exemption. Accordingly the said turnover was deleted from the gross turnover under both the assessments. 3. The Dy. Commr. of Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore, initiated proceedings under s. 32 of the Act in the view that the cotton bandings and cotton ropes sold by the assessee would not come within the meaning of 'textiles' under Item 4 of the Third Schedule. After bearing the objections of the assessees and relying on the decision in K. R. Subbaier vs. State of Madras the Dy. CIT held that these cotton bandings and cotton ropes are not textiles within the meaning of item 4 and that, therefore, they are assessable to sales-tax at multi-point. The assessees preferred appeals to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the goods sold by the assessee are neither textiles nor cotton fabrics and that the turnover, therefore, have been rightly assessed to tax under the Act. 4. In these revision petitions the learned counsel for the assessees raised two contentions : His first contention was that the cotton bandings and cotton yarn sold by the assessee are textiles within the meaning of item 4 of the Third Schedule. 4. In these revision petitions the learned counsel for the assessees raised two contentions : His first contention was that the cotton bandings and cotton yarn sold by the assessee are textiles within the meaning of item 4 of the Third Schedule. He alternatively contended that, in any case, it would fall under the category of 'cotton yarn' under item 3 of the Second Schedule which is liable to tax at single point on the first sale in the state and that the turnover relating to sales of these articles are second sales and hence they are not liable to be included in the taxable turnover. This second contention was never raised either before the Dy. CIT or the Tribunal. Of course, there was no need for them to raise the same before the AO as he had succeeded even in his contention that they were textiles. Since the question raised related to the exemption of the same turnover, though under a different provision of law and the facts are also not in dispute, we permitted the learned counsel for the assessee to raise this alternative contention also. 5. Before we consider these questions of law arising in these tax cases, it is necessary to give a description of the article which the assessees were selling. The cotton ropes which they sold a sample of which was produced before us consist of 12 stands of cotton yarn. Four stands each are twisted in one group and the three sets of four strands are again twisted together so as to make it one rope. In other words, three plies of four stands each are twisted and formed into a rope. It is stated that the yarn used in making these ropes is of grades 10 and 15. The cotton bandings which the assessees sold is a twisted three strand banding with is normally used for tying packings by textile mills and other dealers. Even the cotton ropes which were produced before us, we are of the view, are suited for the purpose of fastening or tying. The learned counsel for the assessees states that apart from the cotton bandings and cotton ropes which he produced before us as samples, there might be certain other bandings and ropes which might consist of more plies or more strands. The learned counsel for the assessees states that apart from the cotton bandings and cotton ropes which he produced before us as samples, there might be certain other bandings and ropes which might consist of more plies or more strands. Item 4 of the Third Schedule which exempts textiles, as it stood in the relevant asst. yr. 1971-72, reads as follows :- "Cotton fabrics, woollen fabrics and rayon or artificial silk fabrics, as defined in items 19, 21 and 22 respectively of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (Central Act I of 1944)." * 6. According to the learned counsel, the word 'textile' in this item is used in generic or technical sense and has to be understood as such and not in the popular sense or as understood in common parlance. So understood, any manifestation of spun yarn by reason of the grouping, banding, braiding, twisting or by the conventional form of weaving would be textiles. He also relied on the item included in the inclusive part of the item, such as tapes, niwars and laces as indicating that the word 'textiles' is not used in this provisions as what is popularly known but only in the technical sense. His further argument is that the article produced and sold by them is the result of grouping the yarn and twisting into a definite shape which is cylindrical in form and that therefore, it is textile. In support of his argument he relied on a number of decision and the meanings for certain words given in "The 'Mercury' Dictionary of Textile Terms" complied by the staff of 'Textile Mercury' and published by Textile Mercury Ltd., 41, Spring Gardens, Manchester-2, England. In the Mercury Dictionary of Textile Terms the Meaning of 'Textile' is given as follows : "Textile : Any product manufactured from fibres through twisting, interlacing, bonding, looping or any other means, in such a manner that the flexibility, strength and other characteristic properties of the individual fibres are not suppressed." * 7. The earliest case which considered the word textile under item 4 of the Third Schedule is the one reported in State of Madras vs. T.T. Gopalier & Anr. In that case the question for consideration was whether 'braided cords' are textiles. The earliest case which considered the word textile under item 4 of the Third Schedule is the one reported in State of Madras vs. T.T. Gopalier & Anr. In that case the question for consideration was whether 'braided cords' are textiles. It was held therein : "The entry excludes certain products like durries, carpets, etc., but it is clear that braided cord does not come under the articles excluded. Therefore, one has to address oneself to the question whether braided cord is really a textile for the purpose of the entry. 'Textile' is defined in the dictionary (Funk Wagnull's Dictionary) as woven fabric or material suitable for weaving. The term 'weaving' will include also weaving of the threads into interlocking patterns. It cannot necessarily be restricted to weaving on a loom, using the warp and woof patterns of thread. Any for of using threads so as to evolve a pattern and make them into a product of utility with fall within the definition of 'weaving'" * In support of that judgment the learned Judges also relied on Subbaier vs. R.P.F. Commr. 1963 AIR(Mad) 112 which was a case decided under the Employees' Provident Fund Act. In the Government of Madras vs. Madurai Braided Cord & Tape Producers Co-operative Industrial Society also the question for consideration was whether 'braided cord would come within the description of cotton fabrics under s. 14 of the Central ST Act. This Court held that 'fabric' is woven material and cotton fabric and textile bear the same content and appear to have similar scope. In that view, following the decision in State of Madras vs. T.T. Gopalier & Anr. it was held 'braided cord' comes within the description of cotton fabrics. 8. An interesting question arose for consideration in the Dr. Commr. of Commr. Taxes vs. Madurai Printing Tape Factory The question was whether 'tape' which is produced by cotton threads pasted together parallelwise is textile within the meaning of Entry 4 of the Third Schedule. It was argued that the essential ingredient of textile is weaving and since the article in question was not woven material but was produced by passing the cotton threads together parallelwise, it could not be treated as textiles. This Court observed : "'Fabric' itself, is according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, 'thing put together; woven material; texture, tissue'. It was argued that the essential ingredient of textile is weaving and since the article in question was not woven material but was produced by passing the cotton threads together parallelwise, it could not be treated as textiles. This Court observed : "'Fabric' itself, is according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, 'thing put together; woven material; texture, tissue'. There is no doubt, therefore, that the ingredient of textile is necessarily weaving, and what is not woven can hardly be described as textile. The various items mentioned in the entry themselves point to this meaning. Tapes made as a result of weaving would clearly be within the entry. But, would it be so if the normal pattern of producing textile by using the warp and woof pattern of thread is not applied ? In our view, that will not be conclusive. We are inclined to think that weaving is not necessarily limited to that type of weaving. In modern advancement of textile technology, it is now possible, without using the warp and the woof pattern to produce tape, by holding the threads together length-wise by using gum. To a casual look the product resembles a tape which has been woven in the normal sense on the loom. But it is not the appearance along, but what is necessary for weaving is that threads are bound together in order to produce a pattern of fabric or tape." * 9. In K. R. Subbaier vs. State of Madras the assessee claimed his turnover relating to sales of cotton ropes, which are normally used for tying cattle, as falling under the category of braided cords and therefore exempt. This Court held that unless weaving is involved in the production of the articles, it would not be textile. The articles in question, a sample of which was produced before the Court was found to consist to rope yarns twisted into three strands and then in turn are twisted together so as to form a thick cord. There was no intertwinning or interweaving. Therefore it was held that it not a braided cord. 10. The articles in question, a sample of which was produced before the Court was found to consist to rope yarns twisted into three strands and then in turn are twisted together so as to form a thick cord. There was no intertwinning or interweaving. Therefore it was held that it not a braided cord. 10. While considering the question whether water-proof cloth is textile, this Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. East India Rubber Works held that the expression 'textiles' usually refers to cloth or fabrics made by weaving, knitting, netting or braiding and classified according to their component fibres such as silk, wool, cotton, linen and such synthetic fibres as rayon, nylon, etc. The essence of textiles consists in the basic process of spinning and weaving. In CST vs. Ashok Elastic Works the Allahabad High Court held that a cotton fabric a fabrication of cotton yard and that 'tapes, niwars and laces' which were the articles considered in that case and which were used for typing garments are cotton fabrics. 11. Kesavan & Co. vs. Asstt. CST relied on by the learned counsel for the assessees is not of much assistance except to say that in whatever form an articles is produced and manufactured, if rayon yarn is used, it would be rayon fabric. 12. A consideration of all these decisions would show that the essence of textiles is the spinning of the cotton or other fibre and weaving such yarn so as toe produce definite patterned article or commodity. Though, normally weaving is a process of interlocking using the warp and woof pattern of thread, it cannot necessarily be restricted to that sense, as held in CIT vs. Taj Mahal Hotel with the advancement of science and technological methods it had become possible even without using warp and woof paten to produce textiles. But whatever be the form of using the threads, it should be so as to evolve a pattern and make them into a product of utility and the yarn should cease its quality as yarn and the product must be adoptable as a textile. Thus, while we agree with the learned counsel for the assessees that in order to produce textiles any method grouping, banding, braiding twisting or weaving could be adopted, merely by reason of twisting of yarn the article produced would not become textile. Thus, while we agree with the learned counsel for the assessees that in order to produce textiles any method grouping, banding, braiding twisting or weaving could be adopted, merely by reason of twisting of yarn the article produced would not become textile. We are also unable to agree with the learned counsel for the assessees that the word 'textiles' in item 4 of Schedule III would have to be understood in the technical or generic sense and not in the popular sense. In fact, this Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. East India Rubber Works held that it must be interpreted according to its ordinary or popular sense, that is, in the sense in which it is commonly understood in ordinary parlance and not in its technical sense. Even the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Taj Mahal Hotel held that in cases where there is no definition of the word it has to construed in its popular sense if it is a word of every day use, that is, in the sense in which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statue is dealing would attribute to it. The Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vs. V. Prakash Trading Co. also held that normally user of the article could be put as a test for determining the character of an article as understood in common parlance. If we apply this test also, the article in question could not be considered as textile as nobody purchases it as a textile as understood in common parlance. No assistance could also be derived to understand the meaning of the word textile in the technical sense by use of the words which are included by reference to the articles which are included in the entry along with textiles. Neither is it possible to restrict the meaning of textile with reference to the specified article included, nor is it possible to enlarge the meaning by a reference to the same. We are accordingly of the view that cotton bandings and cotton ropes sold by the assessee are not textiles within the meaning of item 4 of the Third Schedule to the Act. 13. The alternative contention of the learned counsel is that it is 'cotton yearn, falling under item 3 in Sch. II. We are accordingly of the view that cotton bandings and cotton ropes sold by the assessee are not textiles within the meaning of item 4 of the Third Schedule to the Act. 13. The alternative contention of the learned counsel is that it is 'cotton yearn, falling under item 3 in Sch. II. Under that entry read with w. 4, Cotton yarn could be taxed only at Single point at the point of first sale in the State. In support of his contention that the articles sold by the assessee, viz., cotton banding and cotton ropes, still retain the character of cotton yarn, the learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Madura Mills Company Limited vs. Government of Madras & Anr. In that case the question for consideration was whether 'cord' sold by the assessee is cotton yarn. While considering this question, this Court held. "Ordinarily 'cord' is understood as rope of small diameter or a thick string. String cord and rope are, no doubt, different species of the same genus, namely yarn. But yarn as such mean spun thread. It may form one of the threads of a string, cord or rope. But cotton yarn is distinct by itself and does not evade analysis. The Tribunal, after meticulously explaining the words cord, string and rope, comes to the conclusion that the material before it was not cotton yarn. No reason is given why the word 'cord' is not cotton yarn. The 'cord' in not cotton yarn. The 'cord' in question is a bunch of spun thread spread to a particular shape for a definite commercial purpose. Nevertheless it does not cease to the yarn." * It is true that yarn does not lose its character as yarn merely be reason of its consisting of a bunch of threads, as in the case of doubling, and twisting together of two or more threads to make a stronger or fancier thread in order to manufacture a specified kind of textile, still retains its character as yarn. Thus, merely on the ground that the yarn in question consists of a bunch of spun thread, it could not be held that is not yarn. Thus, merely on the ground that the yarn in question consists of a bunch of spun thread, it could not be held that is not yarn. At the same time all bunches of spun thread, irrespective of the purpose for which it is intended to be used, it could not be held to be yarn, if the bunch of spun thread forms the basic spun yarn for weaving. It will still retain the character of yarn. In other words, its the capability of being used for making textile within the meaning of item 4 of the Third Sch. would determine its character as yarn. One the produce is not, and could not, used for such manufacture of textile, it ceases to be yarn within the meaning of item 3 of the Second Sch. 14. We may also, in this connection cite the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vs. V. Prakash Trading Co. where the user test was applied to determine the character of an article. This Court also applied this test of user in determining the character of the article in The State of Tamil Nadu vs. East India Rubber Works, Madras. The learned for the assessees brought to our notice another decision of the Kerala High Court reported in Dy. Commr. of Agrl. IT & ST vs. A. Khader Kunhi Sons & Ors. where the learned Judges have taken a different view form that of this Court in Madura Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Government of Madras & Anr.; As we have pointed out earlier, though this Court held that a bunch of spun thread spread to a particular shape for a definite commercial purpose, this Court did not say that in every case irrespective of its capability of being used for the purpose of making textile it could be considered as yarn. In that case the question of its adaptability or usability for manufacture of textile was not disputed and therefore, this court did not go into that question. We, therefore, consider that a bunch of spun thread could also come within the definition of cotton yarn it if is capable of being used for the manufacture of textiles under item 4. 15. In this case, was we have already stated, this point was not raised before the Tribunal or the Dy. CIT. We, therefore, consider that a bunch of spun thread could also come within the definition of cotton yarn it if is capable of being used for the manufacture of textiles under item 4. 15. In this case, was we have already stated, this point was not raised before the Tribunal or the Dy. CIT. We have permitted the assessee to raise this contention for the first time at this stage for the reason already stated. It, therefore, becomes necessary for the Tribunal now to go into the question as to whether the articles sold by the assessee still retain the character of yarn or capable of being used for the manufacture of any textile falling under item 4 of the Third Sch. We also notice form the facts in this case that the assessees purchased cotton yarn of 25s to 50s from either registered dealers or Mills. After such purchase, they twist the yarn by adopting 2 to 10 strand yarn each twist constituting one ply. For the sake of strength and durability two plies are again twisted together. In big textile Mills the twisting operation of various strands of yarn is done by doubling machines. The assessee also state that though they could have marketed the product as thick yarn or twisted yarn, due to trade practice this was described as banding or cords. It, therefore, becomes, necessary for the Tribunal also to consider whether the article sold by the assessees should be considered as commercially different form the article purchased by them in order to determine whether the sale by the assessees is a first sale or a second sale. Therefore, the Tribunal will have to consider the question whether the sale by the assessee is a first sale or a second sale. Thus, solely for the purpose of deciding whether the article sold by the assessees still retains the character of yarn and whether it is commercially different from the one they had purchased, in order to attract a fresh single point taxation, we are remanding the case to the Tribunal. The assessees will be permitted to adduce such evidence as they may choose before the Tribunal. Needless to say that if the Tribunal considers that it could be better disposed of by any other authority, it is open to the Tribunal to remand the matter to such authority as it may choose. 16. The assessees will be permitted to adduce such evidence as they may choose before the Tribunal. Needless to say that if the Tribunal considers that it could be better disposed of by any other authority, it is open to the Tribunal to remand the matter to such authority as it may choose. 16. Since the assessee have failed in the main point which they had raised and we have allowed them only to raise an additional point in this Court, we consider that the Revenue will be entitled to the costs of these revision petition, though we remand the case to the Tribunal. There will be an order accordingly and the Revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel fee Rs. 150 in each.