Judgment :- 1. The assessee is a manufacturer of tread rubber at Industrial Estate, Changanacherry. The respondent is the Revenue. We are concerned with the assessment year 1986-87. The order of the Appellate Tribunal dated October 10, 1991, in T.A. No. 269 of 1990 is in challenge herein. The main raw material for manufacture of tread rubber is natural rubber. During the relevant year, rubber was an item taxable at the point of last purchase in the State at the rate of 5 per cent. The revision petitioner-assessee contends that it is entitled to the benefit of the Government Notification S.R.O. No. 641 of 1981 dated June 2,1981, by which the rate of tax was reduced from 5 per cent to 3 per cent on the purchase of rubber by the manufacturers of finished rubber products within the State for the use of such rubber by such manufacturers in the manufacture of finished rubber products within the State. The Appellate Tribunal negatived the plea. That has resulted in the present revision. 2. We heard counsel for the assessee, Mr. C.N. Ramachandran Nair of M/s. Menon & Pai, and also counsel for the respondent-Revenue, Senior Government Pleader Mr. V.C. James. 3. The short question that arises for consideration is, whether the revision petitioner-assessee is entitled to the concessional rate of 3 per cent on the purchase of rubber effected by it. The Revenue contends that the assessee is not entitled to the concessional rate. Though the plea raised is in a narrow compass, the matter has not been approached from a proper angle by any of the authorities. We say so, because two notifications were brought to our notice, viz., S.R.O. Nos. 585 of 1980 and 641 of 1981. S.R.O. No. 641 of 1981 was amended by S.R.O. No. 1516 of 1990. The assessing authority has denied the concessional rate, but has not referred to any specific notification. In appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee seems to have relied on S.R.O. No. 641 of 1981 and the plea was examined from that angle. In second appeal, the Appellate Tribunal examined the plea relying on S.R.O. No. 585 of 1980. Before us, the plea of the revision petitioner-assessee is that it is entitled to the concessional rate whichever notification is made applicable. 4. We shall extract the relevant notifications. In second appeal, the Appellate Tribunal examined the plea relying on S.R.O. No. 585 of 1980. Before us, the plea of the revision petitioner-assessee is that it is entitled to the concessional rate whichever notification is made applicable. 4. We shall extract the relevant notifications. "S.R.O. No. 585/80 hereby make a reduction in the rate of tax payable under the said Act on the purchase of rubber by the small-scale rubber industrial units within the State for use of such rubber by such units in the manufacture of rubber products within the State from 5 per cent to 3 per cent. Explanation.- For the purposes of this notification, small-scale rubber industrial unit means, any small-scale industrial unit registered as such either provisionally or permanently with the Department of Industries and Commerce and utilising rubber in any form as one of the raw materials for the industrial unit". "S.R.O. No. 641/81.- In exercise of the powers conferred by S.10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (15 of 1963), the Government of Kerala, having considered it necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby make a reduction in the rate of tax payable under the said Act on the purchase of rubber by manufacturers of finished rubber products within the State for use of such rubber by such manufacturers in the manufacture of finished rubber products within the State from five per cent to three per cent". "S.R.O. No. 1516/90.- In exercise of the powers conferred by S.10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (15 of 1963), the Government of Kerala, having considered it necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby make the following amendment to the notification issued under G.O.Ms. "S.R.O. No. 1516/90.- In exercise of the powers conferred by S.10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (15 of 1963), the Government of Kerala, having considered it necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby make the following amendment to the notification issued under G.O.Ms. No. 46/81/TD dated the 2nd June, 1981, published as S.R.O. No. 641/81 in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No. 422 dated the 2nd June, 1981, namely: Amendment.- In the said notification the following explanation shall be added at the end of the 1st para, namely: Explanation.- Finished rubber product for the purpose of the notification shall mean any goods manufactured, utilising rubber in any form coming under entry 161 of the First Schedule to the Act as one of the raw materials and includes tread rubber coming under entry 200 of t he First Schedule of the Act, but shall not include any form of rubber taxable at the point of last purchase in the State or which are subjected to processing by mixing with chemicals, gas, fumigation or any other similar process to make any compound of rubber. This notification shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of April, 1989 subject to the condition that taxes if any remitted by any dealer shall not be refunded. Explanatory note.- (This does not form part of the notification, but is intended to indicate its general purport). Government as per Notification issued in S.R.O. No. 641/81, referred to above, has reduced the rate of tax payable on the purchase of rubber by manufacturers of finished rubber products within the State for use of such rubber by such manufacturers in the manufacture of finished rubber products within the State to three percent. Government therefore consider that an explanation for 'finished rubber product' is necessary to remove the ambiguity. The notification is intended to achieve the above object". We will examine whether the assessee is entitled to the concessional rate of tax for the raw rubber purchased by it, which was used for the manufacture of tread rubber with reference to S.R.O. No. 585 of 1980. It is stated in the assessment order that the assessee is manufacturing tread rubber at industrial estate, Changanacherry. Ordinarily, a small-scale industrial unit is housed in the industrial estate. The assessee purchases raw rubber and manufactures tread rubber. It is stated in the assessment order that the assessee is manufacturing tread rubber at industrial estate, Changanacherry. Ordinarily, a small-scale industrial unit is housed in the industrial estate. The assessee purchases raw rubber and manufactures tread rubber. In view of the explanation to S.R.O. No. 585 of 1980, it cannot be denied that the raw rubber purchased is used as a raw material by the unit for manufacture of tread rubber. Tread rubber is a product of mixture of rubber and synthetic rubber. It is not denied that one of the raw materials for manufacture of tread rubber is raw rubber. In the light of the clear language in S.R.O. No 585 of 1980 along with its explanation, it cannot admit of any doubt that raw rubber is purchased by the assessee for use of such rubber in the unit for the manufacture of rubber products, viz., tread rubber, and it is entitled to the concessional rate as per S.R.O.No. 585 of 1980. The Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that the concessional rate can be allowed only if the raw rubber purchased is used for the manufacture of rubber products and not for the manufacture of synthetic rubber products. If the raw rubber is utilised as one of the materials for the rubber products-whether the end-product is a synthetic product or purely a rubber product-the assessee will be entitled to the concessional rate of 3 per cent. The Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that the assessee is not entitled to the concessional rate since the raw rubber is used for the manufacture of tread rubber, which is a synthetic rubber product. Even if tread rubber is a synthetic rubber product, the assessee will be entitled to the concessional rate, in view of the language in S.R.O. No. 585 of 1980. It cannot be denied that the end-product is rubber product and the raw rubber purchased was utilised as one of the raw materials for the industrial unit. In this view, we hold that the Appellate Tribunal committed an error of law in upholding the levy of tax at the rate of 5 per cent on the purchase turnover of raw rubber used for the manufacture of tread rubber. 5. In this view, we hold that the Appellate Tribunal committed an error of law in upholding the levy of tax at the rate of 5 per cent on the purchase turnover of raw rubber used for the manufacture of tread rubber. 5. Even on the basis that S.R.O. No. 641 of 1981 applies to the instant case, it is evident that the assessees, a manufacturer, who purchased rubber and manufactured finished rubber products within the State, is entitled to the concessional rate provided by S.R.O. No. 641 of 1981. The assessee is a manufacturer of finished rubber products, as clarified by S.R.O. No.1516of 1990. The assessee utilises the raw rubber purchased for the manufacture of tread rubber. The explanation to S.R.O. No.1516of 1990 makes the position clear. The explanation was by way of amendment to S.R.O. No. 641 of 1981. The explanatory note refers to the ambiguity in the earlier notification (S.R.O. No. 641 of 1981), which necessitated the explanation to be inserted by way of amendment by S.R.O. No. 1516 of 1990. In view of the explanation which was introduced by way of amendment in S.R.O. No. 1516 of 1990 for the removal of ambiguity in S.R.O. No. 641 of 1981, it is evident that the raw rubber purchased by the assessee was used in the manufacture of tread rubber, a finished product produced within the State. The raw rubber was purchased for use of such rubber by the assessee-manufacturer in the manufacture of finished rubber products within the State. So, even on the basis that it is S.R.O. No. 641 of 1981 that applies to the instant case, the assessee will be entitled to the concessional rate of 3 per cent, in view of the subsequent clarification made in S.R.O. No. 1516 of 1990. We hold accordingly. 6. Either way, the assessee is entitled to the concessional rate of 3 percent on the purchase value of rubber made use of for manufacturing tread rubber. The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, taking a contrary view, discloses an error of law. The said order is set aside. This revision is allowed to the above extent.