JUDGMENT K. M. AGARWAL, J. - By this reference under section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, read with section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (in short "the Entry Tax Act"), at the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our opinion : "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that brown paper (craft paper) which was mentioned in the sales tax registration certificate as raw material was subject to entry tax at 2 per cent as packing material, as it was used as such, even though the definition of packing material did not include it and further could not be taxed at 1/2 per cent as raw material as it is not really raw material ?" 2. The assessee is a manufacturer of bidis. In its sales tax registration certificate, brown paper (craft paper) is shown as a raw material. The brown paper was used for the purpose of packing bidis. During the assessment period August 1, 1977 to July 31, 1978, the brown paper was subjected to entry tax by treating it as packing material after giving deduction for purchases made from the registered dealers. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. The appeal was dismissed after rejecting the contention of the assessee that the brown paper was liable to be taxed as raw material, because it was so mentioned in the registration certificate. Further appeal before the Tribunal was also dismissed. The assessee, thereafter, made an application for making a reference. Accordingly, the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this Court by the Tribunal. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the said question of law deserves to be answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. Section 2(ff) of the Entry Tax Act defines "packing material" as goods specified at Serial No. 15 of Part IV of Schedule II to the Sales Tax Act or notified thereunder which are consumed or used in the packing of other goods or as containers of other goods. Section 2(ff) of the Entry Tax Act defines "packing material" as goods specified at Serial No. 15 of Part IV of Schedule II to the Sales Tax Act or notified thereunder which are consumed or used in the packing of other goods or as containers of other goods. Serial No. 15 of Part IV of Schedule II to the M.P. General Sales Tax Act begins with the words "goods for use as containers and packing materials, that is to say :" and proceeds to specify goods which are included within the meaning of the words "containers and packing materials". This list or the definition of "packing material" given in section 2(ff) of the Entry Tax Act did not include brown paper or craft paper as packing material before October 1, 1978. By Notification dated October 1, 1978, brown paper (craft paper) was notified as goods included within the definition of "packing material". As the specification of goods as "containers and packing material" given at Serial No. 15 of Part IV of Schedule II to the Sales Tax Act was not exhaustive but only illustrative in nature, brown paper could not be excluded from being treated as packing material on the ground that it was not included within the definition of "packing material" during the period of assessment but was included thereafter by Notification dated October 1, 1978. The brown paper was admittedly used by the assessee as packing material. It could not be used as raw material. Accordingly, the use of brown paper as packing material could not be excluded from consideration on the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner or on the ground that it was mentioned as raw material in the registration certificate of the assessee. For all these reasons, the aforesaid question of law deserves to be answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. 4. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the assessee that if brown paper was treated as packing material, it was liable to be taxed as packing material at the rate of 1 per cent but it was subjected to tax at the rate of 2 per cent by treating it as residuary goods. 4. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the assessee that if brown paper was treated as packing material, it was liable to be taxed as packing material at the rate of 1 per cent but it was subjected to tax at the rate of 2 per cent by treating it as residuary goods. Accordingly it was argued that if the brown paper was held to be liable to entry tax as packing material, the rate of entry tax shall be required to be answered as 1 per cent in place of 2 per cent mentioned in the question referred to this Court. We do not agree with the contention. The statement of case or the question referred to us does not indicate that there was any dispute with regard to the rate of entry tax on packing material and, therefore, we would be going beyond the scope of this reference if we proceed to decide the rate of entry tax on packing material at the relevant time. However, it may be mentioned that if the entry tax on packing material at the relevant time was different from the rate charged from the assessee, it would be an error apparent on the face of the record which could be got removed by resorting to the provisions for rectification in accordance with law. 5. For the forgoing reason, the question of law referred to us is answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs of this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.