JUDGMENT R. S. KEJRIWAL, J. - This revision has been directed against the order dated 17th March, 1986, passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer, by which it allowed the appeal filed by the non-petitioner. The relevant facts of the case are that the non-petitioner submitted an application under section 12A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short "the RST Act") for determination as to whether the "gol papad" which is manufactured out of maida, salt, papad soda, starch, alum and food colours is exempted from sales tax under the Government Notification No. F. 5(22) FD/CT/70-14 dated 9th March, 1970. This notification was issued by the state Government under sub-section (2) of section 4 of the RST Act, 1954, by which "papad" and "badi", i.e., "mangori" were exempted from sales tax. The learned Additional Commissioner, vide his order dated 30th July, 1982, answered the question against the non-petitioner. Being aggrieved with the said order, the non-petitioner went in appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") which was allowed by the said Tribunal, vide its order dated 17th March, 1986. The department has come up in revision. I have heard Mr. G. S. Bafna for the department and Mr. Arjun Kotwani and Mr. Moti Kotwani for the non-petitioner. It has been argued by Mr. Bafna that the Government has exempted "papad" and not "gol papad" from tax. He submits that the entry of notification dated 9th March, 1970, should be strictly constructed as there is no ambiguity in it. He further argued that the words or expressions used in a notification must be construed in the sense in which they are understood by the trade and by the consumer and not by what is understood by the non-petitioner. In Bhargava's dictionary the word "papad" is defined as "a thin crisp cake made out of several kinds of pulses, sago, potato, etc.". Mr. Bafna argued that "papad" cannot be a rolled one but it is a thin crisp of various diameters. Mr. Bafna further argued that "gol papad" is a different commercial commodity and as such it is not covered by the aforesaid notification. Mr. Bafna argued that "papad" cannot be a rolled one but it is a thin crisp of various diameters. Mr. Bafna further argued that "gol papad" is a different commercial commodity and as such it is not covered by the aforesaid notification. In support of his arguments he placed reliance on the judgments reported in [1976] 37 STC 319 (SC) (State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra) and [1980] 45 STC 58 (SC) [Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) v. G. S. Pai & Co]. On the other hand, Mr. Kotwani argued that "papad" in entry of notification dated 9th March, 1970, has been used as a "genus" and its "species" are made from pulses, rice, maida, potato, sago, etc., as is given in Indian Standard Institute's booklet on specification for "papad". He further argued that "gol papad" is also exempted from sales tax. If there is ambiguity and if two interpretations are possible, the interpretation which is favourable to the assessee should be preferred. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on [1967] 19 STC 24 (SC) (State of Gujarat v. Sakarwala Brothers), (1982) 4 STL 16 (All.) (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Gulati & Company), [1984] 57 STC 322 (All.); 1984 UPTC 204 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Triloki Nath and Sons) and [1989] 72 STC 280 (SC) (Collector of Central Excise v. Krishna Carbon Paper & Co.). Mr. Kotwani further argued that there is no mention in the entry that others types of papads are excluded and as such according to him all types of papads are included in this notification, including "gol papad". He placed before me several entries in which the words "excluding", "except" and "such as" are mentioned. He also argued that exemption from tax granted by a statute should be given full scope and amplitude and should not be withheld by any Legislature or by the delegated authority under the notification issued under the Act. He argued that the operation of a notification has to be judged not by the object which the rule-making authority had in mind but by the words it has employed. The entire matter is governed wholly by the words in the notification. He argued that the operation of a notification has to be judged not by the object which the rule-making authority had in mind but by the words it has employed. The entire matter is governed wholly by the words in the notification. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on [1988] 38 ELT 23 (Bom) (Indian Lead Private Limited v. Union of India) and AIR 1970 SC 755 (Hansrj Gordhandas v. H. H. Dave, Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs). There is no dispute that if the language employed in the notification is vague or if two interpretations of the same are possible, the benefit should be given to the assessee. It is also correct that the operation of the notification has to be judged not by the object which the rule-making authority has in mind but by the words which it has employed to effectuate the legislative intent. It is also correct that the operation of the notification has to be judged not by the object which the rule-making authority has in mind but by the words which it has employed to effectuate the legislative intent. The notification dated 9th March, 1970 reads as under : "F. 5(22) FD/CT/70-14 dated 9th March, 1970 : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Rajasthan Act 29 of 1954), the State Government being of the opinion that it is expedient in the public interest to do so, hereby exempts from tax the sale or purchase of the undermentioned goods on the condition that the goods are recorded in the registration certificate of the dealer claiming the exemption as being so exempted, namely :- (1) Cultivators, harrows, seed drills and land levellers worked or operated exclusively by animal power, and the parts thereof, which are ordinarily not used otherwise than as such parts; (2) 'Pagri' with 'challa'; (3) Invitation cards, envelopes, file covers, letter head pads and other stationery articles made of handmade paper; (4) Soap when sold by the person making the soap himself or by any other member of his family, provided that the maker does not used power at any state in making the soap and does not employ any paid labour; and (5) 'Papad' and 'badi', i.e., 'mangori'." From reading this notification, it is apparent the in item No. (5) words "papad" and "badi" i.e., "mangori" have been used while in entry No. (3) of the notification after the words "letter head pads" the words "other stationery articles made of handmade paper" have been used meaning thereby that entry No. (3) is not restricted to only invitation cards, envelopes, file covers, letter head pads but also includes other stationery articles made of handmade paper. Though such words are used in entry No. (3) but not in entry No. (5) meaning thereby that the Government intended to exclude sales tax only on "papad" and "badi" and not all types of "papads". In Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) v. G. S. Pai & Co. [1980] 45 STC 58, the Honourable Supreme Court was interpreting the word "bullion" as mentioned in entry No. 56 in the First Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. In Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) v. G. S. Pai & Co. [1980] 45 STC 58, the Honourable Supreme Court was interpreting the word "bullion" as mentioned in entry No. 56 in the First Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The Honourable Supreme Court held that the word "bullion" has to be interpreted according to ordinary parlance and must be given a meaning which people conversant with that commodity would ascribe to it. "Bullion" in its popular sense cannot include ornaments or other articles of gold. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra [1976] 37 STC 319, the Honourable Supreme Court held as under : "The ordinary meaning to be assigned to a taxable item in a list of specified items is that each item so specified is considered as a separately taxable item for purposes of single point taxation in a series of sales unless the contrary is shown. The mere fact that the substance or raw material out of which it is made has also been taxed in some other form, when it was sold as a separate commercial commodity, would make no difference for purposes of the law of sales tax. The object is to tax sale of each commercial commodity and not the sale of the substance out of which they are made. Each commercial commodity becomes a separate object of taxation in a series of sales of that commercial commodity so long as it retains its identity as that commodity." In State of Gujarat v. Sakarwala Brothers [1967] 19 STC 24, the Honourable Supreme Court held that Patasa, harda and alchidana fall within the definition of "sugar". It was so because "sugar" under the said Act was defined as any form of sugar containing more than 90 per cent of sucrose. That case was decided on the basis of definition of "sugar" given in the said Act and not on the basis that sugar is genus of patasa, harda and alchidana. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Gulati & Co. (1982) 4 STL 16 (All.) in the entry No. 16 of the notification issued by the U.P. Government under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 the word "biscuit" was mentioned. It was held by the Allahabad High Court that there is mention of biscuit as a genus. No exception is made about biscuits in any particular form. (1982) 4 STL 16 (All.) in the entry No. 16 of the notification issued by the U.P. Government under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 the word "biscuit" was mentioned. It was held by the Allahabad High Court that there is mention of biscuit as a genus. No exception is made about biscuits in any particular form. The Allahabad High Court took the view on the ground that in several entries some exclusion from the genus of the article comprised therein was contemplated. This case is based on its own facts. In the present case there is no exclusion in any entry of the notification but from the notification in entry No. (3), it is apparent that the words "other stationery articles made of handmade paper" where used whereas in entry No. (5) of the notification, no such words are used. Had the Government intended to include all types of papads, the Government should have mentioned the words as mentioned in entry No. (3) of the notification. No such words are used in entry No. (5) of the notification which goes to show that the Government wanted to give exemption only on the sale of papad and badi and not on all types of papads. As held above, the notification has to be interpreted on the basis of the words employed in the notification. From the words employed in the notification, "papad" has been exempted from tax and not all types of papads made of maida, suji, etc. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Triloki Nath and Sons [1984] 57 STC 322 (All.); 1984 UPTC 204, the Uttar Pradesh Government in its notification exempted fertilizers other than chemical fertilizers. It was held that "neem-ki-khali" is capable of being used as "fertilizer" the same would be exempted from taxation. It was further held that those oil-cakes which were not generally used as "fertilizers" but were generally utilized as cattle feed, the same would be liable to tax being not covered by notification. This case is not relevant for the decision of the present case, and is based on its own facts. In Collector of Central Excise v. Krishna Carbon Paper Co. [1989] 72 STC 280 (SC), the words used in entry No. (3) are "carbons and other copying papers" and as such this authority is also not relevant to the facts of the present case. In Collector of Central Excise v. Krishna Carbon Paper Co. [1989] 72 STC 280 (SC), the words used in entry No. (3) are "carbons and other copying papers" and as such this authority is also not relevant to the facts of the present case. The settled principle is that the goods must be construed in the sense in which they are sold by the dealer and purchased by the consumer. It is they who are concerned with it. When a consumer asks a dealer to supply him "papad", the dealer will supply him papad and not the gol papad. Both commodities are different commodities and it cannot be said that when "papad" has been exempted from tax, "gol papad" is also exempted from tax on the ground that "goal papad" is made of same raw material from which the papad has been made. Consequently, I allow the revision, set aside the order dated 17th March, 1986, passed by Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal and affirm the order dated 27th August, 1982, of the Additional Commissioner (Taxes), Rajasthan, and hold that "got papad" which in manufactured by pulses, rice, maida, potato, sago, etc., is not exempted from sales tax. Petition allowed.