JUDGMENT K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. - In this batch of three tax revisions, the same assessee is the revision-petitioner. The assessee is a public limited company. It is engaged in the manufacture of "multipin connectors" and their sales. In these revisions the short question that arises for consideration is whether the "multipin connectors", manufactured and sold by the assessee, is an item falling under entry 132 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (in short, "the Act"), as it stood before it was substituted by Finance Act 18 of 1987. The kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam (in short, "the Tribunal"), in a common order dated October 31, 1989, held that the "multipin connectors", manufactured and sold by the revision-petitioner, is a set of instrument used as an appliance or apparatus in telecommunication systems and so it will fall within entry 132 of the First Schedule to the Act as it stood then, during the relevant period. The assessee, revision-petitioner assails the said decision of the Tribunal. 2. We heard counsel for the revision-petitioner, Dr. K. B. Mohammed Kutty, as also counsel for the respondent-Revenue, Mr. N. N. Divakaran Pillai. According to the assessee the "multipin connectors" will fall under entry 130 of the First Schedule to the Act; whereas, according to the Revenue, it will fall under entry 132 of the First Schedule to the Act. We shall extract entries 130 and 132 of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time. "THE FIRST SCHEDULE Goods in respect of which single point tax is leviable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sl. Description of goods Point of levy Rate of No. tax ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1) (2) (3) (4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 130 All electrical goods (other At the point of 10 than those specifically first sale in the mentioned in this Schedule), State by a dealer instruments, apparatus, who is liable appliances and all such to tax under articles, the use of which section 5. cannot be had except with the application of electrical energy, including fan and lighting bulbs, electrical earthenwares and porcelain and all other accessories and component parts, either sold as a whole or in parts. 132 Telecommunication apparatus At the point of 15." not falling under any other first sale in the item in this Schedule. cannot be had except with the application of electrical energy, including fan and lighting bulbs, electrical earthenwares and porcelain and all other accessories and component parts, either sold as a whole or in parts. 132 Telecommunication apparatus At the point of 15." not falling under any other first sale in the item in this Schedule. State by a dealer who is liable to tax under section 5. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. The short question is whether the "multipin connectors" manufactured and sold by the assessee can be called a "telecommunication apparatus". The Tribunal relying upon the dictionary meaning of the word "apparatus" and considering the persons to whom the "multipin connectors" were sold by the assessee, came to the conclusion that the "multipin connectors" are "telecommunication apparatus." In order to understand, whether the "multipin connectors" marketed by the assessee will be a "telecommunication apparatus", the test that should be applied is, how persons in the said trade or business will understand the words "telecommunication apparatus". The relevant entry is one inserted with reference to a particular trade or business and so it should be understood in the sense in which persons concerned in the said trade or business will understand it to be. No attempt was made by the Tribunal to ascertain how persons dealing with the particular goods will understand it to be. The Tribunal by simply referring to the dictionary meaning of the word and the persons to whom the goods were sold, surmised that the "multipin connectors" are "telecommunication apparatus" within the meaning of entry 132 of the First Schedule to the Act. In cases where the goods are dealt with by particular persons or trade, evidence as to how persons dealing with the goods understood it to be, is very relevant. The approach to be made to determine as to whether the goods manufactured and marketed by the assessee will fall within one entry or the other, is as stated by one of us in delivering the judgment in O.P. No. 997 of 1980-B, dated 3rd June, 1983. It is to the following effect : "Whether an entry applies to a given article is, at least, a mixed question of law and fact. In these proceedings, what is available before court is only certain averments made by the petitioner and against it those made by the respondents. The materials before court are scanty. It is to the following effect : "Whether an entry applies to a given article is, at least, a mixed question of law and fact. In these proceedings, what is available before court is only certain averments made by the petitioner and against it those made by the respondents. The materials before court are scanty. As to whether a particular item falls within a particular entry or not or as to whether it is covered by a particular entry to be taxed at a particular rate, the authorities have to find out, on the basis of relevant facts, how it is understood in 'common parlance' or 'in the commercial world' or in 'trade circles'. If the word used in the relevant entry is one of everyday use, it must be construed as understood in common parlance and it must be given its popular sense meaning 'that sense which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it.' (See State of West Bengal v. Washi Ahmed [1977] 39 STC 378 (SC)). But, 'if the Act is one passed with reference to a particular trade, business, or transaction, and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows and understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning, though it may differ from the common or ordinary meaning of the words'. [Lord Esher M.R. in Unwin v. Hanson (1891) 2 QB 115 at 119]. The test of commercial meaning has been aptly stated by V. J. Taraporevala and S. N. Parikh, in their book, the Law of Central Excise (1979 Edn.) at page 177 as follows : "The proper test for classification of goods under appropriate specific entries and sub-entries is now judicially well-settled. Goods which can be subjected to excise duty under a particular item or sub-item, are those which are known by the description in the market. For a manufactured article, to fall under a particular item, it should be shown to be known by that description to the consumers and the commercial community. It is clear that meanings given to articles in a fiscal statute must be as people in trade and commerce, conversant with the subject, generally treat and understand them in the usual course. For a manufactured article, to fall under a particular item, it should be shown to be known by that description to the consumers and the commercial community. It is clear that meanings given to articles in a fiscal statute must be as people in trade and commerce, conversant with the subject, generally treat and understand them in the usual course. The test of being known in the market must be satisfied when excise is sought to be levied.'" 4. Here, in this case, apart from assertions by both parties, there is no material to substantiate the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. We are of the view, that the Tribunal was in error in surmising that the "multipin connectors", manufactured and sold by the assessee, will be a "telecommunication apparatus" without properly examining the matter from a correct perspective or angel. In cases of this type, one would expect at least a few persons connected in the trade to be examined with reference to the particular item, which is sought to be taxed. As a final fact-finding authority, it is for the Tribunal to investigate the relevant facts and come to a conclusion as to the "entry" under which the particular goods will fall under the Act. This has not been done in the instant case by the Tribunal. The order passed by the Tribunal is perfunctory. Since the ultimate decision under which entry an item will fall is a mixed question of fact and law, it is for the final fact-finding authority, the Tribunal, to first find on facts as to the nature of the goods and then whether it will fall within one or other of the entry. This has not been done. 5. We, therefore, set aside the common judgment of the Tribunal, dated October 31, 1989, on this aspect, and remit the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal on this matter in accordance with law. This is a case, where we should say the persons concerned in the trade should be examined before arriving at a conclusion. Issue photostat copies of this judgment to counsel appearing in the case on usual terms. Matter remanded.