JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. B. P. SARAF, J. - These two references under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, arise out of a common order of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal ("the Tribunal") in appeals of the assessee for two different years. The issue involved in both the references being common, they were taken up together for hearing and disposal. The question referred to us for opinion in these references at the instance of the Revenue is as follows : "Whether, on the facts of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of the Schedule entries appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, was the Tribunal justified in law in holding that the sales of 'aloe twine' are covered by the scope of entry No. 25 of Part I of Schedule C and not by residuary entry No. 102 of Part II of Schedule C." 2. The determination of the above controversy depends upon the interpretation of entry 25 of Part I of Schedule C to the Act which is in the following terms : ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Serial Description of goods Rate of sales tax Rate of No. purchase tax ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 2 3 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 25 (i) Gunny bags and hessian, Four paise in Four paise in jute twine the rupee. the rupee (ii) Coir yarn or string do. do. (Kathya dori) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. The assessee claimed before the Sales Tax Officer that aloo twine was covered by the above entry. The Sales Tax Officer did not accept this claim of the assessee, as he was of the opinion that aloo twine was not jute twine and hence not covered by the said entry. The assessee appealed to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals), who agreed with the Sales Tax Officer and dismissed the appeal. The assessee went in further appeal to the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal. It was contended by the assessee before the Tribunal that aloo twine was nothing but jute twine and hence covered by entry 25 of Part I of Schedule C to the Act. According to the assessee, in commercial or popular parlance, aloo twine is regarded as jute twine. The assessee went in further appeal to the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal. It was contended by the assessee before the Tribunal that aloo twine was nothing but jute twine and hence covered by entry 25 of Part I of Schedule C to the Act. According to the assessee, in commercial or popular parlance, aloo twine is regarded as jute twine. Certificates were produced before the Tribunal from some manufacturers of aloo ropes and twines to the effect that the quality and strength as well as rates of both jute and aloo twines were similar and that the method of making yarn and twines both from jute and aloo was the same and that the appearance of the two was also similar. Those certificates also contained a statement that both jute twine and aloo twine were commonly used in the trade for packing of cloth bales, etc. Contention of the Revenue, on the other hand, was that jute twine referred to in entry 25 means twine made of jute and aloo twine being not made of jute, could not be regarded as jute twine. According to the Revenue, aloo plant does not belong to the species of plants from which jute fibre is extracted and jute and aloo fibres are different and distinct from each other. The contention of the Revenue therefore was that aloo twine would not be covered by entry 25(i) of Part I of Schedule C which refers to "Gunny bags and hessian; jute twine". 4. The Tribunal considered the rival submissions. Referring to the certificates produced by the assessee it observed : "it appears that in popular or commercial sense also, aloo twine can be considered as jute twine". The Tribunal further observed that "even if this view is considered as doubtful one, then according to the established principles of interpretation of entries, the dispute has to be resolved in favour of the assessee". The Tribunal concluded : "Thus looking from all angles, we feel that the sales of aloo twine are nothing but sales of jute twine as per entry 25 of Schedule C, Part I appended to the Act". In view of the above finding the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee and held that aloo twine could be regarded as "jute twine" falling under entry 25(i) of Part I of Schedule C to the Act. In view of the above finding the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee and held that aloo twine could be regarded as "jute twine" falling under entry 25(i) of Part I of Schedule C to the Act. Hence this reference at the instance of the Revenue. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the Revenue Mr. N. T. Saraf, who submits that the Tribunal committed a manifest error of law in holding aloo twine to be jute twine falling within entry 25 of Part I of Schedule C to the Act, on the basis of the certificates issued by some manufacturers of such twines in total disregard to the fact that only jute twine was covered by entry 25 of Part I of Schedule C and not aloo twine which is made of a fibre different and distinct from jute. It was further submitted that the Tribunal was also not justified in law in basing its conclusion on the supposed similarity of look, appearance or user of jute twine and aloo twine and holding that aloo twine could be regarded as jute twine. In support of the above contention, reliance was placed upon the definition of jute contained in entry 7 of Schedule B to the Act and the description of jute and aloo appearing in Encyclopaedia Britannica. 6. We have carefully considered the above submissions of the learned counsel for the Revenue. Entry 25 of Part I of Schedule C, which has been set out above, covers only "jute twine". The sole question for our determination is whether aloo twine, which is made of aloo fibre, could be regarded as jute twine falling under the above entry. The answer obviously has to be in the negative, because aloe (also spelt as "aloo") is not jute but a product distinct and different from that. Jute has been defined in item 7 of Schedule B as follows : "Jute, that is to say, the fibre extracted from plants belonging to the species Corchorus Capsularies and Corchorus olitorius and the fibre known as mesta or bimli extracted from plants of the species hibiscus cannabinus and hibiscus sub-dariffa-Var altissima and the fibre known as sunn or sunnhemp extracted from plants of the species crotalaria juncea whether baled or otherwise." The same is the definition of jute in clause (v) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 7. 7. From the above definition it is clear that jute is a fibre extracted from plants belonging to the species specified therein. Jute has also been described in Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th Edition), Volume 6, as under : "Jute, Hindi PAT, also called ALLYOTT, either of two species of Corchorus plants-C. Capsularis, or while jute, and C. Olitorius, including both tossa and daisee varieties - all belonging to the family, Tiliaceae, and their fibre, one of the group called bast fibres (q.y.). It is second to cotton in world fibre consumption ...." ................ The jute plant, which probably originated on the Indian subcontinent, is an herbaceous annual averaging 10 to 12 feet (3 to 3.6 metres) in height. Most varieties grow best in well-drained, sandy loam and require warm, humid climates with average monthly rainfall of at least 3 to 4 inches (7.5 to 10 centimetres) during the growing season. Crops are harvested by hand, usually after the flowers have been shed out before the fruit is fully mature. After the stalks have been subjected to a retting operation, the fibre is stripped away by hand. India, China and Bangladesh are the leading producers .......". ................ "Aloe" has been defined in Volume 1 of the very same Encyclopaedia in the following terms : "Aloe, genus of shrubby succulent plants in the lily family (Liliaceae), containing about 200 species native to Africa. Most members of the genus have a rosette of leaves at the base but no stem ........." "Aloe plant" which is known as "Mauritius hemp" has been described in Volume 9 in the following terms : Mauritius hemp (Furcraea gigantea), Portuguese PITEIRA, French, ALOE, plant of the family grave (Agavaceae), and its fibre, belonging to the leaf fibre (q.v.) group. Despite its name, it is not a true hemp. Although the plant is native to Brazil, commercial production of the fibre did not begin in that country until about 1875. The plant was introduced to the island of Mauritius in the late 18th century where the fibre from the highland is referred to as aloe malgache and from the lower areas aloe creole. ................ The fibre is made into bagging and other coarse fabrics and is sometimes mixed with other fibres to improve colour in rope ....." 8. The plant was introduced to the island of Mauritius in the late 18th century where the fibre from the highland is referred to as aloe malgache and from the lower areas aloe creole. ................ The fibre is made into bagging and other coarse fabrics and is sometimes mixed with other fibres to improve colour in rope ....." 8. It is manifest from the above definitions of jute and aloe that the plant from which aloe fibre is extracted does not belong to the species of plants from which jute fibre is extracted. Jute fibre is extracted from plants belonging to the species Chorchorus capsularis and Corchorus olitorius whereas aloe fibre is extracted from plant of the family aguva (agavaceae). Despite its name it is not a true hemp, it rather belongs to the leaf fibre group. Jute and aloe are, therefore, two different materials. Twine made from jute only is covered by entry 25 and not twine made from aloe. Aloe twine therefore, would not fall under that entry. Moreover, it cannot be termed as "jute twine" merely because it can be used for the very same purposes for which jute twine is used and that its price is more or less identical or similar to that of jute twine. These factors cannot convert aloe twine into jute twine. Certificates issued by the two manufacturers of aloe twine saying that aloe twine is similar to jute twine are not relevant for deciding whether aloe twine is jute twine, because as stated above, by reason of similarity aloe twine which is a product of Mauritius hemp cannot be regarded as "jute twine". We are, therefore, of the clear opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that aloe twine can be treated as jute twine on the face of the fact that item 25 covers only "jute twine". The position might have been different if the expression appearing in the entry were "twine" without the qualifying word "jute" preceding it. In that event, it might have been possible for the assessee to contend that all twines, whether made of jute, aloe or any other fibre, would be covered by the above entry. It is a well-known fact that twines are made of very many products, e.g., jute, cotton, plastic, aloe. These twines are known as cotton twines, plastic twines, jute twines, aloe twines, etc. It is a well-known fact that twines are made of very many products, e.g., jute, cotton, plastic, aloe. These twines are known as cotton twines, plastic twines, jute twines, aloe twines, etc. Entry 25 of Part I of Schedule C does not cover all such twines. It is restricted only to "jute twine", i.e., twine made of jute. Aloe twine, therefore, would not fall under the said entry. 9. In view of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.