JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by G. SIVARAJAN, J. - The assessment years concerned in these two revision cases are 1988-89 and 1989-90. The common question arising in both these revisions is as to the rate of tax applicable to "fenoklin" dealt with by the assessee. The assessee had collected tax at 6 per cent as applicable to all acids falling under entry No. 2 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, as it stood at the relevant time. The assessee has also remitted the said amount to the department. But the assessing authority has taken the view that "fenoklin" is a commodity falling under entry No. 42 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 taxable at 8 per cent. This was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Ernakulam. On second appeal before the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, the Appellate Tribunal took the view that fenoklin cannot be treated as a chemical taxable at 8 per cent. But the Appellate Tribunal without going into the further question as to the rate of tax applicable to this commodity simply allowed the appeal. It is against this, the department has come up in revision before this Court. 2. As already stated, the question is regarding the rate of tax applicable to "fenoklin" dealt with by the assessee. Before proceeding to consider the question any further, it is necessary to bear in mind the principles regarding the interpretation of an entry in a fiscal statute. It is by now well-settled that while interpreting items in fiscal statutes like the Sales Tax Acts resort must be had not to the scientific or the technical meaning of such terms but to their popular meaning or the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them, that is to say, to their commercial sense. To the above effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh [1967] 19 STC 469 and reiterated in Indo International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. [1981] 47 STC 359. To the above effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh [1967] 19 STC 469 and reiterated in Indo International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. [1981] 47 STC 359. It was further observed in the decision second mentioned above, that if any term or expression has been defined in the enactment then it must be understood in the sense in which it is defined but in the absence of any definition being given in the enactment the meaning of the term in common parlance or commercial parlance has to be adopted. 3. The Supreme Court in Atul Glass Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1986] 63 STC 322, in order to ascertain whether a marketable product falls within a specific item in the Schedule to the Central Excise Act, applied the identity test with reference to its functional character and observed that the identity of an article is associated with its primary function. 4. To put it differently, the test would be as to how a commodity is understood by the trade and the consumer and that it is by its functional character that the product is so identified. If the question before us is considered in the light of the test laid down by the Supreme Court, we will find that none of these authorities has approached the question keeping in mind the above principles. The assessing authority in the assessment order has stated that in common parlance or commercial parlance, "fenoklin" is known as a chemical used for cleaning such as sanifresh, odopin, etc. It further observed that the necessity to probe into the qualities and ingredients of a commodity arises only when there is an ambiguity in classifying a commodity, and further observed that in commercial as well as in common parlance, there is no ambiguity in classifying fenoklin as a cleaning chemical. It is seen from the above observations made by the assessing authority that though it has referred to commercial or common parlance, it had not made any effort to establish that the trade and consumer have understood the commodity, viz., fenoklin only as a "chemical". The authorities also failed to note that entry No. 42 of the First Schedule as it stood at the relevant time was "chemicals not elsewhere specified in this Schedule". The authorities also failed to note that entry No. 42 of the First Schedule as it stood at the relevant time was "chemicals not elsewhere specified in this Schedule". So even if the commodity that is dealt with by the assessee is a chemical, entry No. 42 can be resorted to only if it is found that the same does not fall under any of the other entries in the said Schedule. The assessee, on the belief that the commodity fell under entry No. 2, "all acids", had collected tax only at the rate applicable thereto. No effort was made by the assessing authority or any of the appellate authorities to find out by applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, whether "fenoklin" falls under any of the other entries in the First Schedule especially entries Nos. 2 and 139 of the said Schedule as it stood at the relevant time. 5. The first appellate authority, after referring to the observations of the assessing authority to the effect that in common and commercial parlance, fenoklin is known as a chemical, such as sanifresh and odopin without considering the matter independently took the view that considering the nature of the produce and its use, a different view on this issue is not possible. In other words, he also affirmed the view that fenoklin is a chemical falling under entry No. 42 of the First Schedule to the Act attracting levy of tax at 8 per cent. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, on the other hand, has taken the view that fenoklin is not an item coming under entry No. 42 of the KGST Act and is not taxable at the rate of 8 per cent as a "chemical". The reason for taking the above view is found in paragraph 4 of the appellate order as follows : "This is a disinfectant fluid used for domestic hygiene hospitals, nursing homes, lavatories, etc., mainly for destroying harmful micro organisms or inhibit their growth. According to the appellant's counsel 'chemical' means anything obtained or used in chemistry or a substance used for producing a chemical effect or produced by a chemical process. In support of his contention the counsel has invited our attention to the decision reported in [1970] 25 STC 85 (All.) [FB] (Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. v. Prayag Chemical Works). According to the appellant's counsel 'chemical' means anything obtained or used in chemistry or a substance used for producing a chemical effect or produced by a chemical process. In support of his contention the counsel has invited our attention to the decision reported in [1970] 25 STC 85 (All.) [FB] (Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. v. Prayag Chemical Works). The assessing authority has taken the view that in commercial and common parlance, fenoklin is known as a chemical such as sanifresh, odopin, etc., and has levied tax at the rate of 8 per cent. From the literature and details of composition pasted on the bottle of fenoklin, this is a powerful antiseptic deodorant and germicides for disinfecting hospitals, closets, etc. We notice that the assessing authority has not made out a case that fenoklin is produced by any chemical process. For an article to be qualified as 'chemicals', it must be an intermediary chemical product which can be utilised as such for producing other finished products. Fenoklin is in no way a chemical used as an agent for the purpose of producing any finished product. This item, even though made of certain ingredients which are in the form of chemicals cannot be treated to be a chemical by itself, since the use and utility of fenoklin cannot be said to produce any chemical effect or result in any chemical change." 6. We have already set out the principles to be applied in deciding the question as to whether fenoklin is a commodity falling under any of the entries in the First Schedule to the KGST Act, 1963. All the authorities including the Tribunal had considered the question as to whether fenoklin is a chemical only. None of these authorities have considered the question as to whether fenoklin falls under any of the other entries in the Schedule, such as entry No. 2 - all acids. Entry No. 139 - pesticides, fungicides and plant protection chemicals, etc. It is also seen that though the authorities have stated that in common parlance, fenoklin is understood to be a chemical, they have not established by applying the test laid down by the Supreme Court as to how this commodity can be classified only as a chemical. Entry No. 139 - pesticides, fungicides and plant protection chemicals, etc. It is also seen that though the authorities have stated that in common parlance, fenoklin is understood to be a chemical, they have not established by applying the test laid down by the Supreme Court as to how this commodity can be classified only as a chemical. For determining the question in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it is necessary to consider what this commodity is, for which the only material available is the literature, accompanying this commodity in the market. A copy of the literature is available at pages 24 and 25 of the assessment file given to us by the learned Government Pleader for our verification. It is seen from the literature that this fenoklin dealt with by the assessee is a black disinfecting fluid (emulsifying) grade 3 containing not less than 40 per cent w/w. coaltar acids, phenolic compounds and coal-tar oils. The properties of this fenoklin is further explained to be a powerful antiseptic deodorant and germicide for disinfecting hospitals, closets, sickrooms, lavatories, drains, cesspits, stable, cowsheds, etc. It is also stated that it can be used for general purposes as well as for agricultural purposes. It is specifically noted with the sign that it is poison and meant for external use only. The description of the commodity is seen from the literature that this is a homogeneous solution of coal-tar acids or similar acids derived from petroleum, with or without hydrocarbons, or other phenolic compounds including substituted phenolic compounds or a mixture of these and a suitable emulsifier. 7. Regarding its application, it is further stated that disinfectant fluid used for domestic hygiene, hospitals, nursing homes, lavatories, offices, drains, etc., mainly for destroying harmful micro-organisms or inhibit their growth and that it is applicable to only on increments objects. Though this literature was available on records, none of these authorities have made any effort to understand the nature of the commodity with reference to the same and to decide as to under which entry this commodity falls by applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. 8. Though this literature was available on records, none of these authorities have made any effort to understand the nature of the commodity with reference to the same and to decide as to under which entry this commodity falls by applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. 8. We think that the proper course to be adopted in this case is to quash and set aside all the orders on this point and to direct the assessing authority to consider the question regarding the rate of tax applicable to fenoklin in the light of the observations contained in this judgment and in accordance with law. 9. We accordingly set aside the orders of the assessing authority and the two appellate authorities and direct the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) II, Special Circle II, Ernakulam, to consider the question afresh in the light of the directions contained hereinabove and in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The tax revision cases are disposed of as above. Petition disposed of accordingly.