Judgment :- MISHRA, J. By these three petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Madras, in which it has been held that rivets manufactured by the respondents do not fall under entry 119 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Entry 119 of the First Schedule runs as follows : "119. Bolts, rivets and nuts, threaded or tapped and screws of base metal or alloys thereof, including bolt ends, screw studs, screw studding, self-tapped screws, screw hooks and screw rings." * By Amendment Act 7 of 1981, however, rivets have been added in entry 119. Since these cases related to the period prior to the amendment, ex facie rivets were not included under this entry. The Appellate Tribunal, thus found, "except the rivet, the other items mentioned above are either threaded or tapped. The rivet has blend edge. As explained by the learned counsel for the appellants, a rivet is used as a permanent fastener in the following way. Before a rivet is inserted, it is made red-hot, inserted into the hole and the headless edge will be hammered so that a head on the other side would be created. If the river has to be removed, the head on any one of the side must be cut. Otherwise, it cannot be removed. The rivets are sold by the appellants to be used in manufacturing ships. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, the various items found in entry 119 are only non-permanent or temporary fasteners. In the specifications issued by the Indian Standard Institution, rivets are separately classified. It has not been included in its specifications under the head 'Technical supply conditions for threaded fasteners'. In the paper book filed by the appellants, comparison between rivet and bolt has been made at page 15. A rivet has been made as permanent fastening and used for bringing together many parts of a metal. Even under the Central Excise Tariff, rivets are not dutied under item 52 which is pari materia to item 119 of the First Schedule. The order iron or steel products and other rolled, forged or extruded shapes are included in item 26AA of the Central Excise Tariff. This is also evident from the gate pass (copy available at page 11 of paper book). The order iron or steel products and other rolled, forged or extruded shapes are included in item 26AA of the Central Excise Tariff. This is also evident from the gate pass (copy available at page 11 of paper book). At pages 13 and 14 of the paper book, bolts, nuts and screws are shown as coming under item 52 of the Central Excise Tariff. The various bill produced by the appellants (available at pages 1 to 8 in the paper book) show that the other dealers in Tamil Nadu also charge only 4 per cent sales tax on rivets. It is, therefore, clear that rivets cannot come under the category of bolts and nuts. We are unable to accept the contentions of the learned State Representative that rivets do the same thing as bolts and nuts. He also requested this Tribunal to apply the test of user theory. As already discussed, the rivet is a permanent fastener whereas bolts and nuts are temporary fasteners. Rivets can be removed only by chipping off the head and once it is done, the rivet becomes useless. On the other hand, the bolts and nuts can be removed at any time and can be made use of again. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, the adjoining words found in entry 119 of the First Schedule add colour to the disputed words. The words 'threaded' or 'tapped' occurring in entry 119 will clearly indicate that the entry relates only to articles which are threaded or tapped. Thus viewed from any angle, we are of the opinion that rivets do not come under entry 119 of the First Schedule and as such the view of the lower authorities that the turnover relating to the sale of rivets is exigible to single point tax at 8 per cent is incorrect." * The above has been challenged before us mainly on the ground that rivets for all purposes are bolts and in common parlance it will be impossible to distinguish a rivet from a bolt. In other words, the learned counsel for the State has suggested that this Court should express its own opinion on the basis of the dictionary meaning of the word "rivet" read the dictionary meaning of the word "bolt" and the nature of inter-changeable character of "rivet" and "bolt" in common use. In other words, the learned counsel for the State has suggested that this Court should express its own opinion on the basis of the dictionary meaning of the word "rivet" read the dictionary meaning of the word "bolt" and the nature of inter-changeable character of "rivet" and "bolt" in common use. We are afraid, we cannot assume the role of forming an opinion of our own and on that basis declaring that the Appellate Tribunal has erred, because, if we do so without recording a finding that the opinion expressed by the Appellate Tribunal cannot be that of a reasonable person, we shall be violating the settled rule of prudence that the appellate or the revisional court should not, for its own opinion, hold that any case decided has gone wrong unless it finds that the opinion expressed in the impugned order of judgment is so unreasonable that no reasonable person can come to the said conclusion. We have quoted in extenso the view of the Appellate Tribunal. Its emphasis may not be of the nature as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant (respondent herein) and a contrary view may be possible. That, however, in our opinion, is not enough to invite interference in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. We accordingly find no merits in the petitions. The petitions are dismissed. No costs.