JUDGMENT K.M. Dayal, J. - These two writ petitions raise a common question of law. Under the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) market fee is levied under Section 17 (iii) (b). Such fee is payable on transactions of sale on specified agricultural produce in the market area. 2. The petitioners have challenged the levy of market fees on cotton waste, by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti. Their contention is that cotton waste is not cotton and is not covered by the words. "Cotton ginned or un-ginned." 3. The petitioners (in Writ Petition No. 1322 of 1979) M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. carry on the business of manufacturing and selling cotton yam, cotton sewing threads and cotton and rayon fabrics at their factory, situated at Modinagar. In manufacturing cotton yam and fabrics etc., from ginned cotton, small fluffs and sweepings are blown in air or dropped on the floor. These fluffs, sweepings etc., are commonly known as cotton waste. Small quantities of cotton are wasted in various processes of manufacture of cotton fabrics at various stages. This cotton waste cannot be used for textile purposes and is quite different from cotton. Under Cotton Control Order, issued under the Essential Commodities Act, a licence is required to be taken by the dealers from the Textile Commissioner for carrying on business or trade in cotton, including storage, sale and purchase of cotton. As cotton waste is not cotton, no licence is required under the Essential Commodities Act as mentioned above. 4. By Notification No. 584/XII-VIII-104-76 dated 11th April 1, 1978 the provision of Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 were enforced in various districts including Meerut and Ghaziabad. By that notification the items mentioned in schedule (b) of the same were included in the list of specified agricultural produce. In schedule (b) of the notification, Item No. 3 of group IV - Fabrics-included cotton ginned and un-ginned. According to the petitioners they were dealing in purchase and sale of cotton and had taken a licence for the same from Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Muradnagar. The Secretary of the aforesaid Samiti issued a letter to the petitioners dated 15th December, 1978 directing them to pay market fee at the rate of 1 per cent on the sales of cotton waste as well. The Secretary of the aforesaid Samiti issued a letter to the petitioners dated 15th December, 1978 directing them to pay market fee at the rate of 1 per cent on the sales of cotton waste as well. According to the petitioners the cotton waste was not cotton ginned or un-ginned, and the Samiti had no authority to levy or demand any fee on the sale or purchase of cotton waste. 5. The other petition (Writ Petition No. 9773 of 1978) has been filed by M/s. Badri Prasad Shyam Sunder and others who are carrying on wholesale business in cotton waste in the city of Kanpur. They have also claimed that under the notification mentioned above, the Secretary of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Kanpur, issued a notice dated 18th September, 1978 to all the merchants dealing in cotton waste or Gudri calling upon them to pay market fee at the rate of 1 per cent on the transactions relating to the same. 6. In both the writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the authority of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti to charge market fee on the transactions relating to cotton waste. Common question, that arises in both the cases, is whether cotton waste can be covered by the item cotton ginned or un-ginned". Under Section 17 (iii) (b) of the Act the market fee can be levied on the transactions relating to specified agricultural produce. Agricultural produce has been defined in clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act as under: "(a) "Agricultural produce" means such Items of produce of agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, sericulture, pisciculture, animal husbandry, or forest as are specified in the Schedule, and includes ad- mixture of two or more of such items and also includes any such item in processed form, and further includes gur, rab, shakkar, khandsari and jaggery". 7. Specified Agricultural Produce is defined in clause (t) of Section 2 of the Act as under: "(t) "Specified Agricultural Produce" means agricultural produce specified in notification under Section 6 or as modified under Section 8". (Underlining is by us.) 7A. From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that what is chargeable is primarily the agricultural produce. 7. Specified Agricultural Produce is defined in clause (t) of Section 2 of the Act as under: "(t) "Specified Agricultural Produce" means agricultural produce specified in notification under Section 6 or as modified under Section 8". (Underlining is by us.) 7A. From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that what is chargeable is primarily the agricultural produce. From the definition of the terms "agricultural produce" and "specified agricultural produce", it is apparent that market fee is payable in respect of such agricultural produce which comes within the definition of the said term and which has been specified in the notification contemplated by Section 6 of the Act. 8. Some of the items of the produce specified in the Schedule are also saleable in a mixed form. For an illustration may take the mixture of wheat and barley commonly known as Gojai. Another such mixture used in this country contains wheat, gram, barely and pea. Two or more of these grains mixed together are commonly known and used as Bejhar. These would come within the purview of the clause, "admixture of two or more of such items." Bejhar is mentioned in the schedule. It may perhaps include Gojai as well. It would not have been necessary to mention Bejhar in the schedule if it was to be treated as agricultural produce without such a mention. 9. Besides admixtures, any such item in processed form is also included in the definition of "Agricultural Produce". It is to be seen whether cotton waste would be a processed form of cotton, and, if so, whether it can be included in the term Agricultural Produce. 10. Processing yields two types of products. Firstly those which retain their identity and secondly which are quite different from the original item. 11. "Such items in processed form" under the definition can relate only to such products which may be termed as "agricultural produce". Agriculture has been described in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Volume I, as : "the science and art of cultivating the soil; including the gathering in or the crops and the rearing of live stock; farming" (in the widest sense). 12. Agricultural operations can be extended to the operations up to the stage of produce as it leaves the thrashing floor. Agriculture has been described in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Volume I, as : "the science and art of cultivating the soil; including the gathering in or the crops and the rearing of live stock; farming" (in the widest sense). 12. Agricultural operations can be extended to the operations up to the stage of produce as it leaves the thrashing floor. However, by extended definition under the Act the agricultural produce could also include any such item "in the processed form" i. e. subjected to operations beyond the thrashing floor. 13. As 110 guidance is available in the Act as to what will be such item in processed form, the test should be whether it has lost its identity as such item or not. So far as the original produce, e. g. wheat, gram, arhar, maize, paddy etc. are concerned, they leave the thrashing floor as such and there can be no doubt that these will be "agricultural produce" under the Act if specified under Section 6. But once wheat is ground into flour; the paddy is husked by huller; or legumes e. g. arhar, or gram is broken and Dal is prepared and husk removed from it; maize converted into popcorn, cornflakes or starch, they completely lose their original form. Rice hulling or preparing Dais from legumes and other processing of agricultural produce mentioned above are not thrashing floor operations. The products i. e. flour or rice and husk, or Dal and husk, do not retain the identity of the original products and cannot be said to be the same items in a processed form. 14. On the other hand the aforesaid items e. g. wheat etc. may be subjected to physical, chemical or biological processes. By such treatment they may not lose their identity as such. Such process may either be with the help of chemicals viz. treatment by chemicals, or by exposure to physical radiation with highly active or destructive rays e. g. by Gamma rays or biologically by using bacteria or other stimulants e. g. cane or Barseem culture. The chemical processing sometimes e. g. treatment by mercuric compounds may give a colour to the item, but this processing does not change the identity of the article. It can still be identified as such. Ordinarily this is not done on the thrashing flour. The chemical processing sometimes e. g. treatment by mercuric compounds may give a colour to the item, but this processing does not change the identity of the article. It can still be identified as such. Ordinarily this is not done on the thrashing flour. But under the extended definition in the Act quoted above they could be "such items in a processed form." 15. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the cotton is included in the Schedule to the Act in class A. Agriculture, group IV, Fibres, at serial No 3. The entry is as under : "3. Cotton (ginned or un-ginned)." 16. The cotton as plucked from the plants contains Binaula i. e. seed attached to the fibre. This Binaula as separated from the fibre is also a valuable oil seed. The process by which the seed is removed from the fibre is known as ginning. It can be done by hand by a simple machine in which the cotton is passed through wooden rollers. The cotton seed which is too big and hard is pulled off as a whole and the fibres pass through rollers. Ordinarily cotton alone i. e. un-ginned cotton would be agricultural produce but by extended definition ginned cotton which can be identified as a processed form of cotton has also been included in the agricultural produce. 17. From a study of the schedule we find that wherever the legislature wanted to include an item, which lost its original identity by processing, as "agricultural produce", it did so by mentioning it in the Schedule itself. For example: We find rice at serial No. IV in group I for cereals. That group contains paddy as well. Same is the position of maize. Ordinarily maize as an agricultural crop is the cob along with the grain. In group 6 relating to spices we again find dry mango slices and Aamchur. This is certainly not produced as a fruit. Fruits is mango and out of it mango slices and Aamchur are prepared. Mango itself is given in the Schedule in class B. Horticulture, Group II, relating to fruits as item No. 25. Again we find Makhana in the miscellaneous group No. VIII at serial No. 13, in class A, Agriculture. Kamalgatta grows in ponds in rainy season. It is not cultivated. Its seed is roasted and decorticate. The final product is Makhana. Mango itself is given in the Schedule in class B. Horticulture, Group II, relating to fruits as item No. 25. Again we find Makhana in the miscellaneous group No. VIII at serial No. 13, in class A, Agriculture. Kamalgatta grows in ponds in rainy season. It is not cultivated. Its seed is roasted and decorticate. The final product is Makhana. Similarly Katechu is also not produced in its original form. Katechu is extracted from the wood of the trunk of trees of two spices namely Acacia Katechu and Acacia Suma. This extract is obtained by felling the tree, cutting the wood into small pieces and then boiling the same in water. The extract or concoction is dried by spreading it in shallow vases of clay or sand and the finished product is known as Katechu. This is really a processed item. This is different from the original agricultural produce. Again in the items relating to animal husbandry in class G of the Schedule we find butter, Ghee, Khoya, cottage cheese, bristles, meat and bones. These items can be covered by the extended definition of "agricultural produce" e. g. "items in processed form" only because they are included in the schedule. 18. Consequently I find that wherever the legislature intended to include the processed form of any agricultural produce having no resemblance with the original item, it has mentioned the same separately in the Schedule. 19. Now I revert to cotton and cotton waste. Cotton is mentioned in the Encyclopedia Britannica (Myoropaedia) Vol. II, 1974 Ed. at page 183. According to the Encyclopedia the cotton fibres are classified into three groups based on staple length and appearance. In the first group the length of fibre is from 2.5 cm. to 6.5 cm. It is cotton of highest quality e. g. Sia land, Egyption Etc. In the second group is the staple whose length is 1.3 cm. to 3.3 cm. It is mentioned as Standard Cotton. The third group is coarse cotton having short staple length from 1 to 2.5 cm. This is used for making coarse and inexpensive fibres. The cotton waste as described in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Vol. I, means refuse yarns from cotton mills used for cleaning machinery etc. This product firstly is not cotton. Secondly it is essentially a mill waste consisting of tiny fibres of cotton mixed with dust etc. This is used for making coarse and inexpensive fibres. The cotton waste as described in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Vol. I, means refuse yarns from cotton mills used for cleaning machinery etc. This product firstly is not cotton. Secondly it is essentially a mill waste consisting of tiny fibres of cotton mixed with dust etc. which cannot be used for the purpose of weaving. However, according to the learned counsel for the respondents coarser articles like dusters or Durrie's can be made of of it. 20. What I have to consider here is whether cotton waste and cotton resemble each other so much that they can be classed together. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon two cases in support of his argument that cotton waste was neither ginned nor un-ginned cotton. In Sapt Textile Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. Bombay v. State of Madras reported in (1965) 16 STC 267 (Mad), it was held that the cotton waste was not covered by entry ginned or un-ginned cotton under the Madras Sales Tax Act. It was held that the cotton wasste was covered under the general residual entry and was an item different from ginned or un-ginned cotton. The other case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Arvind Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat reported in (1966) 18 STC 311 (Guj). In this case also the same view was taken. If the Legislature intended to include the cotton waste as a processed item there was no difficulty in including the same in the Schedule just like rice, Khoya, Ghee and several other items. 21 According to the learned counsel for the respondents the cotton waste contains the mixture of tiny cotton fibres with other things. May it be so, but merely be- cause the cotton fibres were present m the cotton waste, it could not become cotton itself. The admixture under the Act has to be a mixture of two or more "such items". It is not argued that in cotton waste the other substance besides cotton, is also an agricultural produce. 22. Let me now examine the question if cotton waste is a processed form of cotton. Is cotton processed for manufacture of "cotton waste"? It is just a waste which is blown off or removed as refuse while preparing certain articles out of cotton. 22. Let me now examine the question if cotton waste is a processed form of cotton. Is cotton processed for manufacture of "cotton waste"? It is just a waste which is blown off or removed as refuse while preparing certain articles out of cotton. Paddy is the original farm product and rice is the processed form. In preparation of rice during the process of hulling husk is separated. If the husk is taken to be a by-product of paddy obtained during the process of preparation of rice, that can also be included in the agricultural products. But that is not termed as agricultural produce. Similar is the position of cotton waste. It is not necessary that cotton waste be always produced in textile operations. When cotton is ginned by hand on indigenous machines for removing cotton seed or binaula or when the cotton is used for making yam by hand spindle of spinning wheel (charkha) or when khadi is prepared by hand-looms, cotton waste is not produced. 23. Thus I find that cotton waste is not the processed form of cotton but it is a by-product quite different form of cotton though containing cotton fibre, which' cannot be used as ordinary cotton. Many items are produced as by-products during manufacture of the principal products. For example glycerin produced as a byproduct during the preparation of soap. Hydrogen is produced as a by-product during the process of generation of electricity chemically or in the process of electroplating. These by-products cannot be termed to be the original products or the original items in a processed form. 24. Prima facie, it thus appears that cotton waste cannot be treated as cotton in a processed form. This point, however, need not detain me further for I am of opinion that even if for the sake of argument cotton waste was to be treated as cotton in a processed form, it does not appear to have been the intention of the Legislature, to make a transaction in regard to cotton waste, liable to pay market fee. The scheme of the Act indicates, as already pointed out above, that such processed items of agricultural produce on which market fee has been made chargeable have been included in the schedule referred to in the definition of the term "agricultural produce". Reference to some such items in processed form e. g. Makhana, Katechu etc. The scheme of the Act indicates, as already pointed out above, that such processed items of agricultural produce on which market fee has been made chargeable have been included in the schedule referred to in the definition of the term "agricultural produce". Reference to some such items in processed form e. g. Makhana, Katechu etc. has already been made above. Even "ginned cotton" which will strictly be a processed form of cotton has been included in the schedule, but cotton waste has not been so included. For this reason I am of opinion that market fee cannot be realised on a transaction in respect of cotton waste. 25. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to the definition of cotton in two Central Acts. The first is Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factories Act, 1925. In clause (b) of Section 2 of the aforesaid Act cotton i(s defined as "cotton means ginned or un-ginned cotton, or cotton waste". The other Act referred to by the learned counsel is Cotton Transport Act, 1923. In clause (b) of Section 2 of the aforesaid Act cotton means every kind of un-manufactured cotton, ginned and un-ginned cotton, cotton waste and cotton seed. In clause (e) of the same section cotton waste is defined as under: "cotton waste" means droppings, strip-pings, fly and other waste product of a cotton mill other than a yam waste;" Learned counsel argued that as the cotton waste was included in the cotton itself in the two Acts, it should be deemed to be included in the item, "ginned and un-ginned cotton" in the Schedule of the Act. This argument cannot be accepted. The definition in the two Acts mentioned above was inclusive. In Cotton Transport Act, 1923 cotton waste was defined as a separate item. That definition also points out that cotton waste was a mill product and not a farm product. 26. Indeed the departure made in the Act in not adding the word "and cotton waste" in the Schedule after the words "cotton ginned and un-ginned" indicates that cotton waste was not intended to be included within the term "agricultural produce." 27. Learned counsel relying upon certain cases argued that the entries in the Constitution were to be liberally construed so as to give them widest coverage. This argument in my opinion is not relevant for our purpose. Learned counsel relying upon certain cases argued that the entries in the Constitution were to be liberally construed so as to give them widest coverage. This argument in my opinion is not relevant for our purpose. The Act in so far as it provides for levy and recovery of market fee is a fiscal statute. Such a statute has to be strictly costumed. Since cotton waste is not mentioned in the item of cotton which is limited to cotton ' ginned or un-ginned, I cannot read the said item as including cotton waste. In C. A. Abraham v. Income-tax Officer, ( AIR 1961 SC 609 ) it has been held: "In interpreting a fiscal statute, the court cannot proceed to make good deficiency if there be any: court must interpret the statute as it stands and in case of doubt in a manner favourable to the tax payers." 28. In the result, cotton waste cannot be said to be included under item No. 3 "cotton, ginned or un-ginned" in Group No. IV Fibre, of Class A. Agriculture, in the Schedule to the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and I hold accordingly. N. D. Ojha, J. I agree with brother K. M. Dayal that no market fee under the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (in short the Act) is payable on a transaction in respect of cotton waste. Since the liability to pay market fee in question is the creature of a statute the simple question which, according to me, falls for consideration is whether the statute, namely, the Act permits levy of this fee on a transaction in respect of cotton waste. In my opinion, it is not necessary to go into the question as to what is the concept, in common parlance, of the terms agriculture, agricultural produce and an item of agricultural produce in a processed form. When a term is defined in an Act general notions in regard to that term are of little relevance. In my opinion, it is not necessary to go into the question as to what is the concept, in common parlance, of the terms agriculture, agricultural produce and an item of agricultural produce in a processed form. When a term is defined in an Act general notions in regard to that term are of little relevance. On a conspectus of the definition of the terms "agricultural produce" and specified agricultural produce given in the Act and keeping in view the nature of the items contained in the Schedule to the Act, reference to which has been made in the definition of the term "agricultural produce", it appears that even such items which are not in their original form but strictly speaking can be termed as products of the items in their original form are also included in the term "agricultural produce". Some such items, e. g., rice, makhana, katechu, khoya, etc have been mentioned by brother K. M. Dayal in his opinion. "Produce" is both a verb and a noun. As noun it also means product. The term "agricultural produce" as defined in the Act has a wide connotation. That an item finds place in the Schedule is. however, not sufficient to make a transaction in respect of such item liable to payment of market fee. The further requirement is that such item should be specified in a notification under Section 6 of market fee. The further requirement is that such item should be specified in a notification under Section 6 or as modified under Section 8 of the Act as envisaged by the definition of the term "specified agricultural produce". The relevant entry in the Schedule is "cotton ginned and,' un-ginned". That cotton waste is not covered in "ginned or un-ginned cotton" finds support from Sapt Textiles Products (India) Private Ltd. Bombay v. State of Madras ( (1965) 16 STC 267 ) (Mad) and Arvind Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat ( (1966) 18 STC 311 (Guj)). 30. In this connection it will be useful to note that in some enactments where cotton waste was sought to be included in the definition of "cotton" it has been so done specifically, e. g., See S. 2 (b) of Cotton Transport Act, 1923 and S. 2 (b) of Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factories Act, 1925. 30. In this connection it will be useful to note that in some enactments where cotton waste was sought to be included in the definition of "cotton" it has been so done specifically, e. g., See S. 2 (b) of Cotton Transport Act, 1923 and S. 2 (b) of Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factories Act, 1925. By not adding the words "and cotton waste after the words "and cotton ginned and un-ginned" in the Schedule to the Act it has been made clear that a transaction in respect of cotton waste was not made liable to payment of market fee under the Act. 31. In view of the foregoing discussion I am of opinion that no market fee on a transaction in respect of cotton waste is payable under the Act. ORDER 32. In the result, both the writ petitions succeed and are allowed In Writ Petition No. 1322 of 1979 by Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. the notices dated 15th September, 1978 and 12th February, 1979 (Annexures 2 and 5) respectively calling upon the petitioner to pay market fee on cotton waste are quashed. In Writ Petition No. 9773 of 1978 (M/s. Badri Prasad Shyam Sunder v. State of U. P. and another) the notices dated 18th September, 1978 and 7th November, 1978 (Annexures 3 and 5) respectively are quashed. 33. The respondents are restrained from charging or demanding any market fee on any transaction relating to cotton waste under the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 from the petitioners. 34. It is further ordered that any amount paid to the respondents by the petitioners as market fee on the cotton waste will be refunded to the petitioners. If any amount has been paid or deposited under the interim orders passed by this Court, the same shall also be disbursed accordingly.