JUDGMENT K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. - The Revenue is the petitioner in this batch of three cases. An identical question arises for consideration in all the three cases. The same assessee is the respondent in T.R.C. Nos. 120 and 140 of 1992. The respondent in T.R.C. No. 147 of 1992 is a different assessee. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, passed a common order in T.A. Nos. 575, 576 and 934 of 1990 dated July 30, 1990. T.R.C. No. 120 of 1992 is filed against T.A. No. 575 of 1990. T.R.C. No. 140 of 1992 is filed against T.A. No. 576 of 1990 and T.R.C. No. 147 of 1992 is filed against T.A. No. 934 of 1990. T.R.C. No. 120 of 1992 relates to the assessment year 1986-87. T.R.C. Nos. 140 and 147 of 1992 relate to the assessment year 1987-88. 2. The assessees-respondents are engaged in the business of purchasing empty cassettes, recording songs, etc., and selling the recorded cassettes. They claimed that the sale of recorded cassettes is a second sale and so, non-taxable. The claim was disallowed by the assessing authority. The first appellate authority upheld the said finding. The Appellate Tribunal held that empty cassettes and recorded cassettes are not commercially distinct articles and the exemption claimed by the assessees on the sales turnover of recorded cassettes, which were originally purchased from local registered dealers within the State as empty cassettes, is allowable. The assessing authority was directed to grant the exemption claimed by the assessees for the year 1987-88 for the period after July 1, 1987. For the period up to July 1, 1987, the Appellate Tribunal held that recorded cassettes will not fall within the purview of entry 155 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and they are eligible to tax as unclassified item up to June 30, 1987. This was so held in view of the decision of this Court in Tharangini Records v. Stare of Kerala [1991] 81 STC 284. Since the recorded cassettes was held to be an unclassified item, it was held that it could be assessed only at the rate of tax from April 1, 1987 to June 30, 1987 (1986-87 and for a portion of 1987-88). The Revenue has filed revisions against the said common order of the Tribunal dated July 30, 1991. 3. We heard counsel for the Revenue, Mr. The Revenue has filed revisions against the said common order of the Tribunal dated July 30, 1991. 3. We heard counsel for the Revenue, Mr. V. C. James, Senior Government Pleader and also counsel for the respondents-assessees, Dr. K. B. Mohammedkutty. 4. It is common ground that in the light of the decision of this Court in Tharangini Records v. State of Kerala [1991] 81 STC 284, recorded cassettes are to be assessed as an unclassified item at the general rate of tax for the year 1986-87 and from April 1, 1987 to June 30, 1987, for the year 1987-88. The correctness of the said decision was not challenged before us. So, T.R.C. No. 120 of 1992, revision filed against T.A. No. 575 of 1990 relating to the assessment year 1986-87, is unsustainable. Indeed, in T.R.C. No. 120 of 1992, no separate question assailing the finding of the Tribunal that recorded cassettes are to be assessed as an unclassified item at the general rate of tax for the year 1986-87 is seen formulated. In other words, the finding on that score is not assailed. The common question canvassed does not arise for the year 1986-87 and so, we dismiss T.R.C. No. 120 of 1992. 5. The common question arises in T.R.C. Nos. 140 and 147 of 1992, for the latter three quarters of the assessment year 1987-88. At the relevant time, entry 191 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act stood as follows : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. Description of goods Point of levy Rate of tax No. (per cent.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) (2) (3) (4) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 191 Tapes and cassettes for At the point of first sale in 15 electronic equipments the State by a dealer who is whether recorded or not liable to tax under section 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The assessee purchased empty cassettes, recorded songs and sold the cassettes. On a plain reading of entry 191 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, it is seen that the plain or empty cassettes are taxable only at the point of first sale. Similarly, recorded cassettes are also taxable only at the point of first sale. Whether the cassettes are empty or recorded is of no consequence. Only the first sale of the cassettes is taxable under entry 191 of the First Schedule to the Act. Similarly, recorded cassettes are also taxable only at the point of first sale. Whether the cassettes are empty or recorded is of no consequence. Only the first sale of the cassettes is taxable under entry 191 of the First Schedule to the Act. Empty as well as recorded cassettes were treated on par. They were treated as same goods. Admittedly, the empty cassettes purchased by the assessee is the first sale. Sale of recorded cassettes is the second sale. It is entitled to exemption. In other words, the sale of recorded cassettes by the assessee is not taxable under entry 191 of the First Schedule to the Act. We accordingly uphold the conclusion of the Tribunal. 6. We should state that the Appellate Tribunal had unnecessarily embarked upon an enquiry as to whether recording of the cassettes is a manufacturing process which has altered the identity of the empty cassettes. The Tribunal has held that the empty cassettes purchased and the recorded cassettes sold are identical goods. The identity of the original commodity is not lost. They are not commercially distinct articles and the recorded cassettes retain their identity as cassettes. Discussion on that score was unnecessary and uncalled for. We should not be understood as having approved the above reasoning and discussion of the Appellate Tribunal. We leave the said question open, for consideration in an appropriate case. 7. With the above observations, the tax revision cases are dismissed. We hold that the common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated July 30, 1990 does not disclose any error of law. We dismiss the revisions. Petitions dismissed.