( 1 ) THE judgment and order under appeal was delivered by the High Court at Kerala. It held that imported sugar was not exigible to tax under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. ( 2 ) THE assessment year with which we are concerned is Assessment Year 1984-85. The assessee was assessed to sales tax under the said Act on its turnover of imported sugar. It challenged the assessment by a writ petition in the Kerala High Court, upon which the order under appeal was passed. ( 3 ) SCHEDULE III of the said Act enumerates goods that are exempt. from the levy of tax thereunder. Entry 5 therein reads thus:"5. Sugar as defined in Item No. 1 of the First Schedule to the Central excises and Salt Act, 1944. "sugar is defined in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 under Entry 1 thus:"1. Sugar produced in a factory ordinarily using power in the course of production of sugar sugar means any form of sugar in which the sucrose content, if expressed as a percentage of the material dried to constant weight at 105 degrees centigrade, would be more than ninety. " ( 4 ) HAVING regard to the definition, it is plain that every grain of sugar, whether imported of produced in India, is exempt from the levy of tax under the said Act, provided that it has been produced in a factory ordinarily using power in the course of production of sugar. ( 5 ) THE argument on behalf of the appellants is based upon Entry 84 of list I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution wherein provision is made for the levy of duties of excise on "goods manufactured or produced in India. . . ". Emphasis is laid on the fact that duties of excise are imposable only upon goods which are manufactured or produced in India. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the definition in the said Act must also be so read and that, therefore, the sugar that is exempt from the levy of tax under the said Act is only such sugar as has been produced in India and not imported sugar. We are unable to accept the contention. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the definition in the said Act must also be so read and that, therefore, the sugar that is exempt from the levy of tax under the said Act is only such sugar as has been produced in India and not imported sugar. We are unable to accept the contention. The definition of "sugar" in the First Schedule to the Excise Act has been incorporated in schedule III of the said Act. The definition must, therefore, be read as it stands and, so read, all sugar, whether imported or otherwise, is not liable to tax under the said Act if produced in a factory ordinarily using power in the course of production of sugar. ( 6 ) THE appeal is, therefore, dismissed. For the same reasons, the special leave petitions are also dismissed. ( 7 ) NO order as to costs.