Judgment :- MISHRA, J. The Tribunal has held that the petitioner is liable to pay single point tax at 5 per cent on the sale of eucalyptus trees. The facts are in a short compass. The petitioner reported total and taxable turnover at Rs. 4, 78, 703.95 for the assessment year 1975-76. The petitioner, however, did not include the sale price of the eucalyptus wood which he purchased from the forest department. His case, however, was that the timber purchased by him was eucalyptus firewood which was exempted from tax as per Notification No. II (1) Rev 386 (g)/74, dated March 4, 1974. We however, in the instant case, need not go into the entire history of the case. First we find the Tribunal has followed the law as stated by this Court in more than one case, i.e., Malayalee Stores v. State of Tamil Nadu 1983 (52) STC 3 and P. R. Lakshmi v. State of Tamil Nadu 1983 (52) STC 5 . A Division Bench of this Court in the former case has stated thus : "We are satisfied that eucalyptus is not firewood. Its sale is not, therefore, exempt under the notification. The sale of eucalyptus in this case has been actually charged in this assessment at the rate of 4 per cent under mutli-point tax. It seems to us that it is taxable in the hands of the assessee at single point, at the rate of 5 per cent, in accordance with the explanation to entry 84 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959." * After a consideration of several points as to the description of the fuel wood sold by the Forest Department and the sale of eucalyptus or any other timber and other aspects this Court found that there was no escape from the conclusion in the case in P. R. Lakshmi v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) that eucalyptus trees purchased were not different from fuel coupes sold for being used as raw material to manufacture rayon. In P. R. Lakshmi v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) a Division Bench of this Court said : "The learned counsel for the assessees argued the matter at some length. In P. R. Lakshmi v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) a Division Bench of this Court said : "The learned counsel for the assessees argued the matter at some length. We listened to the arguments only to find, at the end of it all, that a Bench of this Court had repelled a similar contention put forth in a comparable case in A.H.K. and Company v. Stage of Tamil Nadu 1980 (46) STC 117 . The assessee in that case sold to Gwalior Rayons certain quantities of wood according to certain specifications. This Court held that the wood in question was not firewood. The court referred to the specifications of the goods mentioned in the sale contract, which showed that the subject-matter of the sale was not firewood. The basis of this decision governs the present two cases. The specification of the goods in each case showed that what was sold was not firewood or fuel wood. The specifications showed that the blue-gum eucalyptus must be split to size and debarked. What the purchaser in each case obviously desired was that the eucalyptus should serve the intended purpose, namely, to be used in the manufacture of rayon or other kind of man-made fibre. This applied to wattle wood as well. That the goods sold were firewood or fuel wood must have been farthest from the thoughts of both the parties. Apart from the particular specifications in the sale agreement to which we have referred, we think we must have regard for the colloquy of commerce and the common vocabulary of the market for distinguishing between firewood and other kinds of wood. Firewood, in common commercial parlance and as understood by the trade as well as by the consuming public, is not just any wood that can be used as logs of fuel. Every kind of wood is potential firewood, for you can start a fire with any wood. But this is not the test. Firewood is wood of a kind which has attained notoriety as fuel. Nobody who sells firewood debarks the wood before sale. Nobody who buys firewood requires them to be shaved and debarked. Purchasers may desire the wood to be cut to size. But that is all. There may be eccentric sellers and eccentric buyers who may indulge their fancies in specialities in firewood. But that, again, is not the test. Nobody who sells firewood debarks the wood before sale. Nobody who buys firewood requires them to be shaved and debarked. Purchasers may desire the wood to be cut to size. But that is all. There may be eccentric sellers and eccentric buyers who may indulge their fancies in specialities in firewood. But that, again, is not the test. Where the wood is not, in the normally accepted commercial practice, firewood and more especially where the wood is sold and purchased subject to specifications which conduce the wood to particular purposes other than fuel, which is the case in the present two revisions, the goods sold cannot be regarded as firewood." We are in respectful agreement with the above passage. In the instant case, the sale of eucalyptus trees, as rightly held by the Tribunal, is taxable at single point tax at the rate of 5 per cent. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, drew our attention to a judgment of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Prabakaran and Company (1990) 2 SISTC 124, in which it is indicated that in explanation to entry 84 in the case of timber and bamboo purchased by the forest contractors in the auction of forest coupes conducted by the Forest Department of the Government, the sale by such contractors of such timber and bamboo in any form or size shall be deemed to be the first sale and the sale by the Forest Department in such auction of forest coupes shall not be the first sale. In any case, the first sale would he by the contractor, and in the case of the petitioner who is not a contractor, we do not have any foundational facts for this contention. The Tribunal has concluded rightly and held that the sale of eucalyptus trees is taxable as bamboo and timber at the rate of 5 per cent. There is no merit in the petition. The tax case is accordingly dismissed. No costs.