Judgment :- VENKATASWAMI, J. In these two tax (revision) cases, a common question of law arises for consideration and, further, the assessee is also common. Only the assessment years are different. Hence, these two tax cases are disposed of by this common Order. 2. The assessment years in question are 1979-80 and 1981-82. The assessee is the petitioner in T.C. No. 9 of 1986 and respondent in T.C. No. 4 of 1987. The assessee manufactures and sells a product under the trade name "Thermofoam". For the two assessment years in question, this product was subjected to tax at single point rate under entry 40(v) of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called "the Act") overruling the objection of the assessee that the product will not fall under that entry, but will be liable to multi-point rate of tax. However, when the matters went before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), the Tribunal, presided over by two Members, for the assessment year 1981-82, took the view that "Thermofoam" will fall under entry 40(v) of the First Schedule to the Act and as such exigible to single point rate of tax. For the assessment year 1979-80, when the same question was again brought before the Tribunal (Main Bench), now presided over by a Chairman and two Members (three), a different view was taken, holding that the product "Thermofoam" will not fall under entry 40(v) of the First Schedule to the Act and, therefore, not exigible to single point rate of tax. It is under these circumstances, the assessee has filed T.C. No. 9 of 1986 against the Order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1981-82 and the Revenue has filed T.C. No. 4 of 1987 against the Order for the assessment year 1979-80. 3. The common question that was argued before us is, whether the doctrine of ejusdem generis can be applied to entry 40 of the First Schedule to the Act to give a restricted meaning to sub-entry (v) of main entry 40. In other words, whether the product, namely, "Thermofoam" will fall within entry 40(v) of the First Schedule to the Act, and as such, is exigible to single point rate of tax. Both learned Additional Government Pleader, Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman and learned counsel appearing for the assessee Mr. In other words, whether the product, namely, "Thermofoam" will fall within entry 40(v) of the First Schedule to the Act, and as such, is exigible to single point rate of tax. Both learned Additional Government Pleader, Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman and learned counsel appearing for the assessee Mr. K. J. Chandran advanced arguments only on this aspect, namely, on the question of application of the doctrine of ejusdem generis to entry 40 of the First Schedule to the Act. 4. For proper appreciation of the arguments, it is necessary to set out the entry. It reads as follows : "40. Original entry : Foamed rubber sheets, cushions, pillows and other like articles. Entry from December 1, 1972 : Foamed rubber sheets, foamed rubber cushions and foamed rubber pillows. Entry from November 13, 1974 : (i) Sheets, (ii) cushions, (iii) pillows, (iv) mattresses and (v) other articles made of foam rubber, plastic foam or other synthetic foam ......" * 5. We are concerned with the entry as and from November 13, 1974. To be precise, whether sub-entry (v), namely, "other articles" will take its sense and scope from the words preceding them, namely, sub-entries (i) to (iv) or sub-entry (v) will have a wider tenor without reference to the preceding sub-entries. 6. Learned counsel on both sides cited numerous authorities concerning the application of the doctrine of ejusdem generis. 7. Before referring to the decisions cited at the bar, we feel that it is necessary to say something about the product under consideration and also the reasons which impelled the Tribunal to express two diametrically opposite views. 8. In the pamphlet issued introducing the product, the assessee has given the following particulars about the product : "Thermofoam : An ideal insulation material for air-conditioning and refrigeration, false ceiling and packaging. Thermofoam an expanded polystyrene foam made from STYROPOR supplied by BASF India Limited, is an insulating material for industries such as cold storages, air-conditioning, sound insulation, false ceiling, chilled water and brine pipelines, packaging, etc. Thermofoam is a new synthetic material that has completely out-dated any other type of insulating material. Properties and advantages : Thermofoam has a lower thermal conductivity than any competing cork or fibre and is the lightest rigid insulation material available. Thermofoam being of moulded construction, excludes any possibility of moisture seeping through the cold surfaces. Thermofoam is a new synthetic material that has completely out-dated any other type of insulating material. Properties and advantages : Thermofoam has a lower thermal conductivity than any competing cork or fibre and is the lightest rigid insulation material available. Thermofoam being of moulded construction, excludes any possibility of moisture seeping through the cold surfaces. Thermofoam contains 3/6 million discrete cells per litre giving it out-standing insulating properties. Thermofoam is a perfect barrier against heat with excellent resistance to moisture and chemicals. Thermofoam has high insulating efficiency prolonging plant life and reducing manufacturing costs. Thermofoam has good structural strength, dimensional stability and is shock absorbent. Thermofoam is strong, extremely light and resistant to aging. Thermofoam can be cut easily for insulation. Thermofoam is attractive in appearance being snow white in colour. Thermofoam keeps your processed fluids extremely cool and eliminates surface condensation and dripping. Thermofoam is widely used in cold stores, refrigeration, air-conditioning, roof walls and floor insulation in buildings, false ceiling, acoustic treatment, pipe insulation and packaging.Thermofoam is available in slabs of size 1m x 1/2m, 1m x 1m and in thickness ranging from 15mm (0.59") to 200mm (8"). Thermofoam is also available in pipe sections up to 350mm (14") standard pipe diameter in various thickness". 9. Now, coming to the views expressed by the Tribunal, we find that the case for he assessment year 1981-82 came up before the Tribunal earlier, and the Tribunal (as mentioned above, presided over by two Members only) expressed its view in the following manner :" * The learned counsel for the appellants passionately pleaded for applying the principles of ejusdem generis and argued that such application will lead to the conclusion that the commodity will not fall under the entry 40 of the First Schedule. In our opinion the construction placed by the learned counsel for the appellants does not appear to be correct. In reading a particular entry in trying to fit any goods/commodity in a particular entry, there shall always be an endeavour to see that the entry is given the widest possible scope so that, the goods sought to be placed in the entry does not go without falling in any entry in the Schedule. In short that all goods have to come within the specific entries and no commodity shall be made to fall out of the Schedule. In short that all goods have to come within the specific entries and no commodity shall be made to fall out of the Schedule. To be precise single point rate is the rule and the multi-point is an exception which has to be necessarily pleaded. Seen in this light the commodity which is undoubtedly a synthetic foam will be well within the ambit of entry 40(v) and especially have coverage in words 'or other synthetic foams'. The doctrine of ejusdem generis simply stated is that general words ought to be construed with reference to the words which are immediately around them. The learned counsel for the appellants while pressing into service the words preceding 'other articles' glosses over the words that succeed the words 'other articles'. Synthetic foam is a general word, that is not confined to a class. We do not find a category as such from the articles enumerated in entry 40 of the First Schedule. Therefore, there is no room for the application of the doctrine. The words in entry 40(v) are not at all restrictive and any restrictive application in our view would be offending the entry as such. The words of general import in entry 40(v) cannot be construed restrictively and they should receive full and natural meaning. The principle of ejusdem generis is a rule of construction and does not pertain to substantive law and consequently the same is not applicableAs against the above view, the same Tribunal, now presided over by the Chairman sitting along with two Members (totalling three) expressed an opposite view while considering the same issue for the assessment year 1979-80 in the following manner : "What we have to consider in this appeal is whether we should apply the above principle as contended by the learned counsel. Under entry 40(v) of the First Schedule, the words 'sheets, cushions, pillows and mattresses' are followed by the expression 'other articles'. These specific words belong to a category, namely, goods used for rest and comfort for human body. These words are followed by general term 'other articles'. Therefore, the other articles made of foam, rubber, plastic foam or other synthetic foam, also should be articles used for rest and comfort. Therefore, as per the principles laid down in the several decisions cited above, the words 'other articles' will take colour from the preceding words. These words are followed by general term 'other articles'. Therefore, the other articles made of foam, rubber, plastic foam or other synthetic foam, also should be articles used for rest and comfort. Therefore, as per the principles laid down in the several decisions cited above, the words 'other articles' will take colour from the preceding words. Therefore, the entire articles must be construed as a whole relating to articles of a particular class usable for the purpose of rest, comfort and leisure. The articles dealt with by the appellants, viz., Thermofoam are sold in slab. According to the appellants, they are used as insulating materials for air-conditioning and refrigeration and also for packing and other multifarious uses. This statement of the appellant is not disputed by the Revenue. (The thermofoam is used only as raw product for the purpose of manufacture of goods used for rest and comfort for human body) (some contradiction in this sentence). Thermofoam though used as decorative purpose, viz., false ceiling also, is not used as an article of comfort to come into contact directly with the human body. Therefore, the contention of the appellants that the words 'other articles' should be given a restricted meaning taking colour from the preceding words and if so given, the thermofoam manufactured and sold by the appellants will not fall under the entry 40(v) of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, has to be accepted. In the circumstances, differing from the view taken by this Tribunal earlier in T.A. Nos. 312 and 319/84, dated December 22, 1984, we hold that the goods dealt with by the appellants, viz., thermofoam will not fall under entry 40(v) of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act but they are only general goods taxable at multi-point." * 10. With this background, now let us look into the authorities cited at the Bar and find out whether the rule of ejusdem generis can be made applicable to entry 40 of the First Schedule to the Act. 11. Mr. With this background, now let us look into the authorities cited at the Bar and find out whether the rule of ejusdem generis can be made applicable to entry 40 of the First Schedule to the Act. 11. Mr. K. J. Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, in support of his arguments that the principle of ejusdem generis applies to entry 40 of the First Schedule to the Act and, therefore, the product under consideration will not fall within that category, cited the following decisions : Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited v. State of Madras reported in 1968 (21) STC 227 (Mad.), Controller of Estate Duty v. Ramachandra Gounder reported in 1973 AIR(SC) 1170, 1973 (88) ITR 448, 1973 (4) SCC 102 , 1973 (3) SCR 554 , 1973 UJ 608 , 1973 TaxLR 841, 1974 (1) ITJ 5, 1974 (1) MLJ 36, 1973 (2) CTR 193, 1973 (2) CTR(SC) 193, 1973 SCC(Tax) 388, 1974 (1) SCJ 104, 1973 (2) CTR 193, 1974 (1) MLJ 36 (SC) (SC); 1973 AIR(SC) 1170, 1973 (88) ITR 448, 1973 (4) SCC 102 , 1973 (3) SCR 554 , 1973 UJ 608 , 1973 TaxLR 841, 1974 (1) ITJ 5, 1974 (1) MLJ 36, 1973 (2) CTR 193, 1973 (2) CTR(SC) 193, 1973 SCC(Tax) 388, 1974 (1) SCJ 104, 1973 (2) CTR 193, 1974 (1) MLJ 36 (SC) and Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1989 AIR(SC) 1019, 1989 CrLR(SC) 221, 1989 (21) ECR 7, 1989 (39) ELT 498 , 1989 (1) JT 150 , 1989 (75) STC 75, 1989 (1) Scale 101 , 1989 (2) SCC 458, 1989 (1) SCR 214 , 1989 (1) UJ 369 , 1989 CRLR 221, 1989 (20) ECC 1 (SC).12. In 1968 (21) STC 227 (Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited v. State of Madras), a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with the argument on the application of the principle of ejusdem generis, has observed as follows : ".... The rule is that where specific words are followed by general expressions, the latter notwithstanding their wider tenor in ordinary parlance de hors the context, will take their complexion and content from the preceding words. The rule is that where specific words are followed by general expressions, the latter notwithstanding their wider tenor in ordinary parlance de hors the context, will take their complexion and content from the preceding words. It has been said - see for instance Craies on Statute Law, Sixth Edition, at page 181 - that : 'To invoke the application of the ejusdem generis rule there must be a distinct genus or category. The specific words must apply not to different objects of a widely differing character but to something which can be called a class or kind of objects. Where this is lacking, the rule cannot apply, but the mention of a single species does not constitute a genus.'Farwell, L.J., in Tillmans & Co. v. S. S. Knutsford 1908 (2) KB 385; 1908 AC 207 observed : 'Unless you can find a category, there is no room for the application of the ejusdem generis doctrine'. This principle finds recognition in Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd. 1964 AIR(SC) 1882, 1964 (8) SCR 50 , 66 BomLR 709, 1964 ALJ 971, 1965 MahLJ 45, 1965 MPLJ 34, 1965 MhLJ 45 , 1964 All(LJ) 971 , where the Supreme Court stated : 'It follows, therefore, that interpretation ejusdem generis or noscitur a sociis need not always be made when words showing particular classes are followed by general words. Before the general words can be so interpreted there must be a genus constituted or a category disclosed with reference to which the general words can and are intended to be restricted'." * 13. Before the general words can be so interpreted there must be a genus constituted or a category disclosed with reference to which the general words can and are intended to be restricted'." * 13. In 1973 AIR(SC) 1170, 1973 (88) ITR 448, 1973 (4) SCC 102 , 1973 (3) SCR 554 , 1973 UJ 608 , 1973 TaxLR 841, 1974 (1) ITJ 5, 1974 (1) MLJ 36, 1973 (2) CTR 193, 1973 (2) CTR(SC) 193, 1973 SCC(Tax) 388, 1974 (1) SCJ 104, 1973 (2) CTR 193, 1974 (1) MLJ 36 (SC) : 1973 AIR(SC) 1170, 1973 (88) ITR 448, 1973 (4) SCC 102 , 1973 (3) SCR 554 , 1973 UJ 608 , 1973 TaxLR 841, 1974 (1) ITJ 5, 1974 (1) MLJ 36, 1973 (2) CTR 193, 1973 (2) CTR(SC) 193, 1973 SCC(Tax) 388, 1974 (1) SCJ 104, 1973 (2) CTR 193, 1974 (1) MLJ 36 (SC) (Controller of Estate Duty v. Ramachandra Gounder), the Supreme Court, on the facts of that particular case, held as follows : "In the context of the section, the word 'otherwise' should be construed ejusdem generis and it must be interpreted to mean some kind of legal obligation or some transaction enforceable at law or in equity, which though not in the form of a contract, may confer a benefit on the donor." * 14. In 1989 AIR(SC) 1019, 1989 CrLR(SC) 221, 1989 (21) ECR 7, 1989 (39) ELT 498 , 1989 (1) JT 150 , 1989 (75) STC 75, 1989 (1) Scale 101 , 1989 (2) SCC 458, 1989 (1) SCR 214 , 1989 (1) UJ 369 , 1989 CRLR 221, 1989 (20) ECC 1 [Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India], a recent judgment of the Supreme Court, the principle of ejusdem generis has been elaborately considered. Their Lordships, while construing the words occurring in section 2(f)(v) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, observed as follows : "The expression ejusdem generis - 'of the same kind or nature' - signifies a principle of construction whereby words in a statute which are otherwise wide but are associated in the text with more limited words are, by implication, given a restricted operation and are limited to matters of the same class or genus as preceding them. If a list or string or family of genus-describing terms are followed by wider or residuary or sweeping-up words, then the verbal context and the linguistic implications of the preceding words limit the scope of such words.In 'Statutory Interpretation' Rupert Cross says : '......... The draftsman must be taken to have inserted the general words in case something which ought to have been included among the specifically enumerated items had been omitted ..... ' (page 116). The principle underlying this approach to statutory construction is that the subsequent general words were only intended to guard against some accidental omission in the objects of the kind mentioned earlier and were not intended to extend to objects of a wholly different kind. This is a presumption and operates unless there is some contrary indication. But the preceding words or expressions of restricted meaning must be susceptible of the import that they represent a class. If no class can be found, ejusdem generis rule is not attracted and such broad construction as the subsequent words may admit will be favoured. As a learned author puts it : '..... if a class can be found, but the specific words exhaust the class, then rejection of the rule may be favoured because its adoption would make the general words unnecessary; if, however, the specific words do not exhaust the class, then adoption of the rule may be favoured because its rejection would make the specific words unnecessary.' (See : Construction of Statutes by E. A. Driedger, page 95 quoted by Francis Bennion in his Statutory Construction, pages 829 and 830.) Francis Bennion in his Statutory Construction observed : 'For the ejusdem generis principle to apply there must be a sufficient indication of a category that can properly be described as a class or genus, even though not specified as such in the enactment. Furthermore, the genus must be narrower than the words it is said to regulate. The nature of the genus is gathered by implication from the express words which suggest it ......' (page 830).It is necessary to be able to formulate the genus; for if it cannot be formulated it does not exist. 'Unless you can find a category', said Farwell, L.J., 'there is no room for the application of the ejusdem generis doctrine' (page 831). In SS. Magnhild (Owners) v. McIntyre Bros. & Co. 'Unless you can find a category', said Farwell, L.J., 'there is no room for the application of the ejusdem generis doctrine' (page 831). In SS. Magnhild (Owners) v. McIntyre Bros. & Co. 1920 (3) KB 321, McCardie, J., said : 'So far as I can see the only test seems to be whether the specified things which precede the general words can be placed under some common category. By this I understand that the specified things must possess some common and dominant feature.' In Tribhuban Parkash Nayyar v. Union of India 1970 AIR(SC) 540, 1969 (3) SCC 99 , 1970 (2) SCR 732 , 1970 UJ 35 the court said : '..... This rule reflects an attempt to reconcile incompatibility between the specific and general words, in view of the other rules of interpretation, that all words in a statute are given effect if possible, that a statute is to be construed as a whole and that no words in a statute are presumed to be superfluous ....' (page 740). In U.P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Shanker Jain 1980 AIR(SC) 65, 1979 (2) SCR 355, 1978 (4) SCC 16 , 1978 (37) FLR 280, 1978 (53) FJR 375, 1978 (2) LLJ 399 , 1978 (2) LLN 514, 1979 (1) SCR 355 , 1978 UJ 659 , 1978 SCC(L&S) 481, 1978 LIC 1657, 1979 AIR(SC) 65, 1978 AIR(SC) 65, 1978 SCC(L&S) 481, 1978 SCC(L&S) 481, 1978 SCC(L&S) 481, 1978 SCC(L&S) 481, 1978 SCC(L&S) 481, 1978 SCC(L&S) 481 , it was observed : '..... The true scope of the rule of ejusdem generis is that words of a general nature following specific and particular words should be construed as limited to things which are of the same nature as those specified. But the rule is one which has to be "applied with caution and not pushed too far"..... (page 73). 15. As against the above, Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), to substantiate her contention that the rule of ejusdem generis has no application to entry 40 of the First Schedule to the Act inasmuch as the sub-entries do not form a category, cited the following decisions : Mangalore Electric Supply Co. (page 73). 15. As against the above, Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), to substantiate her contention that the rule of ejusdem generis has no application to entry 40 of the First Schedule to the Act inasmuch as the sub-entries do not form a category, cited the following decisions : Mangalore Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in 1988 (113) ITR 655, 1978 (7) CTR 61, 1978 (113) ITR 655, 1978 AIR(SC) 1272, 1978 (113) ITR 155, 1978 (3) SCC 248 , 1978 (3) SCR 913 , 1978 UJ 503 , 1978 TaxLR 792 (SC), Sukhu Ram Tamrakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1978 (41) STC 376 , 1978 (7) CTR 31 (MP) [FB] and Rao and Company v. State of Karnataka reported in 1981 (47) STC 421 (Kar). 16. In 1988 (113) ITR 655, 1978 (7) CTR 61, 1978 (113) ITR 655, 1978 AIR(SC) 1272, 1978 (113) ITR 155, 1978 (3) SCC 248 , 1978 (3) SCR 913 , 1978 UJ 503 , 1978 TaxLR 792 (Mangalore Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax), the Supreme Court, after citing with approval and quoting the following passage from Craies on Statute Law (7th Edition, page 181), observed as follows :" * 'The ejusdem generis rule is one to be applied with caution and not pushed too far, as in the case of many decisions, which treat it as automatically applicable, and not as being, what it is, a mere presumption, in the absence of other indications of the intention of the Legislature. The modern tendency of the law, it was said, is "to attenuate the application of the rule of ejusdem generis". To invoke the application of the ejusdem generis rule there must be a distinct genus or category. The specific words must apply not to different objects of a widely differing character but to something which can be called a class or kind of objects. Where this is lacking, the rule cannot apply.' Thus, unless you find a category there is no room for the application of the ejusdem generis doctrine and where the words are clearly wide in their meaning they ought not to be qualified on the ground of their association with other words. [See Corporation of Glasgow v. Glasgow Tramway and Omnibus Co. Ltd. 1898 AC 631, 634 (HL)]. [See Corporation of Glasgow v. Glasgow Tramway and Omnibus Co. Ltd. 1898 AC 631, 634 (HL)]. In national Association of Local Government Officers v. Bolton Corporation 1942 (2) AllER 425, 111 LJKB 674, 1943 AC 166, 59 TLR 1 (HL), it was held that 'the ejusdem generis rule is often useful or convenient, but it is merely a rule of construction, not a rule of law'. "17. In 1978 (41) STC 376 , 1978 (7) CTR 31 (Sukhu Ram Tamrakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh), a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh high Court, on this issue, observed as follows :" * The doctrine of ejusdem generis is not an inviolable rule of law. You can be permitted to infer by applying it only in the absence of an indication to the contrary. You cannot apply the rule when the preceding words and the general words constitute description of two categories or the general words in question themselves constitute description of a distinct category.The rule of ejusdem generis is to be applied with caution and should not be pushed too far unless we find a category covering the various items. Where the specific items mentioned in any entry contained in a Schedule appended to a tax statute prescribing rates and impost of taxation on various items are clearly distinct and wide in their meaning vis-a-vis the other items, though contained in the same entry, but belonging to an altogether different category, one ought not qualify their meaning merely on the ground that the word 'dyes' has been mentioned under the entry relating to varnished and paints. The inclusion of several articles under the same heading does not mean the they all constitute one commodity when it is apparent that a particular article belongs to a distinct category. "18. In 1981 (47) STC 421 (Rao and Company v. State of Karnataka), a Division bench of the Karnataka High Court, while construing entry 121 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, overruling the contention that the rule of ejusdem generis applies to that entry, held as follows :" * In our opinion, the principle of ejusdem generis is not at all attracted for the interpretation of entry 121 of the Second Schedule to the Act. In order to attract the principle of ejusdem generis, there must be a genera followed by specification of some of the species which belong to the said genera. It is only in such circumstances, the subsequent words would have to be interpreted in the light of the preceding word which indicates the genera. But when two or more words used one after another are independent of each other and do not fall within one genera, the rule of ejusdem generis cannot at all be invoked; see Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal 1967 AIR(SC) 1857, 1970 (21) FLR 59, 1968 (1) LLJ 257 , 1967 SLR 373, 1967 (3) SCR 377 , 1968 (1) SCJ 461 and Mangalore Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal 1988 (113) ITR 655, 1978 (7) CTR 61, 1978 (113) ITR 655, 1978 AIR(SC) 1272, 1978 (113) ITR 155, 1978 (3) SCC 248 , 1978 (3) SCR 913 , 1978 UJ 503 , 1978 TaxLR 792 ; 1988 (113) ITR 655, 1978 (7) CTR 61, 1978 (113) ITR 655, 1978 AIR(SC) 1272, 1978 (113) ITR 155, 1978 (3) SCC 248 , 1978 (3) SCR 913 , 1978 UJ 503 , 1978 TaxLR 792 .The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that having regard to the gases specified against the entry, there is a genera contemplated, i.e., 'combustible gas' and, therefore, carbon dioxide being non-combustible cannot fall within that entry. This submission has no force. The entry specifies not only oxygen and acetylene, but also nitrogen. Nitrogen gas is not a combustible gas. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, at page 1531, gives the properties of nitrogen as 'colorless, odorless, tasteless, insoluble, inert diatomic gas of the atmosphere'. It is well-known that nitrogen has various industrial uses one of which is its use in electric lamps. Nitrogen therefore is an inert, i.e., non-combustible gas. As far as oxygen and acetylene are concerned, they are certainly combustible and in combination they are used to produce flame required for purposes of metal cutting, welding, etc. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the submission that the entry comprehends only combustible gases. "19. Entry 121 of the Second Schedule to Karnataka Act (mentioned above) reads as follows : "Industrial gas, such as oxygen, acetylene, nitrogen and the like." 20. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the submission that the entry comprehends only combustible gases. "19. Entry 121 of the Second Schedule to Karnataka Act (mentioned above) reads as follows : "Industrial gas, such as oxygen, acetylene, nitrogen and the like." 20. Bearing in mind the above rulings and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court and various High Courts including our High Court, let us now consider the rival arguments. 21. The submission of the learned counsel for the assessee is like this : The words, sub-entries (i) to (iv) of main entry 40 belong to one category and, therefore, while construing sub-entry (v), namely, "other articles", restricted meaning should be given having regard to the sub-entries preceding it. If so construed, the product in question will fall outside entry 40 and, therefore, it will not attract single point rate of tax, but it will be liable to multi-point rate of tax as held by the Tribunal in its later judgment. He also placed reliance on the observations of the Tribunal in the later judgment to the effect that" * the entire articles referred to in entry 40 must be construed as a whole relating to articles of a particular class usable for the purpose of rest, comfort and leisure". If that be so, learned counsel for the assessee argued that the product in question having regard to particulars given in the pamphlet (set out supra) will not fall under entry 40. 22. The learned Additional Government Pleader, contending contra, submitted that it is not correct to assume that sub-entries (i) to (iv) belong to a category. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, if at all, sub-entries (ii), (iii) and (iv) may come under one category, but sub-entry (i) will not fall under that category. She also contended that the words occurring at the end, namely, "other synthetic foam" which were introduced on and from November 13, 1974, cannot be given a restricted meaning having regard to the earlier entries on December 1, 1972 and before that. She also submitted that the original view taken by the Tribunal is the correct one and the later view of the Tribunal is not correct. 23. From the decisions cited above, it will be seen that the rule of ejusdem generis has to be applied with caution and should not be pushed too far. She also submitted that the original view taken by the Tribunal is the correct one and the later view of the Tribunal is not correct. 23. From the decisions cited above, it will be seen that the rule of ejusdem generis has to be applied with caution and should not be pushed too far. The rule cannot be applied when the preceding words and the general words constitute description of two categories or the general words in question themselves constitute description of a distinct category. We are of the view, as contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, "sheets" occurring in sub-entry (i) of entry 40 cannot be clubbed with sub-entries (ii), (iii) and (iv) so as to form one category. We have noticed above the Tribunal to hold that the rule of ejusdem generis applies to entry 40 of the First Schedule to the Act in its later view, took a stand that the sub-entries (i) to (v) of entry 40 belong to a category, namely, goods used for rest and comfort for human body. In this context, in our view, it is doubtful whether "sheets"[sub-entry (i)] can be brought under the category of goods used for rest and comfort for human body having regard to the another sub-entry (iv), viz., mattresses. Therefore, we are of the view that the sub-entries do not form one category. It is not disputed before us that if the principle of ejusdem generis is not applied to entry 40, then the "Thermofoam" under consideration will fall under sub-entry (v), viz., "other articles" having regard to the literature issued by the assessee while introducing the goods in the market. Even otherwise, we feel that the product in question will fall under the residuary clause, viz., "or other synthetic foam". On that view, we hold that the rule of ejusdem generis will not apply to entry 40 and consequently the later view taken by the Tribunal in the order challenged in T.C. No. 4 of 1987 is not sustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the order in Tribunal Appeal No. 693 of 1984 and allow T.C. No. 4 of 1987. Consequently, we dismiss T.C. No. 9 of 1986. There will be no order as to costs in both the tax cases.