JUDGMENT A. K. MATHUR, C.J. - This is a sales tax reference at the instance of the assessee and the following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for answer by this Court : "Whether mill board or paper board are packing material within the meaning of entry 15, Part IV, Schedule II, taxable at 5 per cent or other goods falling in residuary class taxable at 10 per cent ?" 2. The assessee is a manufacturer of paper board and mill board. For the year 1983-84, the assessee claimed that paper board and mill board are packing materials and, therefore, they are exigible at the rate of 5 per cent, but the assessing officer held it otherwise, i.e., taxable at the rate of 10 per cent. Against this order, the matter was taken up in appeal before the Commissioner and thereafter before the Board of Revenue and both of them upheld the same. Hence the assessee approached the Board of Revenue for making a reference to this Court. The Board of Revenue has accordingly referred the aforesaid question for answer by this Court. 3. We have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Learned Government Advocate submitted that the mill board is used as raw material for packing material and this has been clarified by the Commissioner also by his communication dated October 23, 1986, which reads as under : "I have gone through the argument of the party as well as the notes leading to the earlier clarification dated May 30, 1984. The expert opinion of the Small Industries Service Institute has also been obtained. The Small Industries Service Institute have clarified that mill board is used as raw material for packing purposes apart from card board sheet, etc. They have also clarified in another letter that grey board and mill board can be used as stationery as well as packing material." From this, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that since mill board is a packing material, therefore it should be exigible at the rate of 5 per cent instead of 10 per cent. Learned counsel also invited our attention to item 15 of Part IV of Schedule II of the Act which talks about the goods. It reads as under : "15. Learned counsel also invited our attention to item 15 of Part IV of Schedule II of the Act which talks about the goods. It reads as under : "15. Goods for use as containers and packing material, that is to say - (i) Gunny bags and hessian; (ii) Jute twine; (iii) Card board boxes and cartons; (iv) Empty tins and empty barrels; (v) Wooden boxes (khokas) and tin boxes; (vi) Empty bottle and corks; (vii) Polythene packing materials; (viii) Paper labels; (ix) Tin seals; (x) Paper bags; (xi) Wooden frames and reels; (xii) Paper cones; (xiii) Such other goods as may be notified as containers or packing material." In fact, all the packing material has been specifically mentioned in the entry by name and the mill board does not find mention in the list of the packing material. Though the Commissioner has clarified that the mill board also uses one of the material for preparing packing material, but such mill board does not find mention in the list of the packing material as enumerated in item No. 15, as quoted above. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal is justified. 4. Learned counsel also invited our attention to [1987] 65 STC 243 (All.) (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Adarsh Paper and Board Manufacturing Company). In this case, the entry under the U.P. Sales Tax Act read as "paper of all kinds....meant....for any other purpose" and in that context, His Lordship held that mill board had to be taxed under the concerned notification as "paper". But in the present case, there is no such entry in item No. 15. As against this, all the packing materials have been enumerated and particularised and this mill board is not included in any of those entries even if we try to interpret this packing material in a liberal sense. Though the Commissioner has clarified that it is a material used for packing material, but nevertheless, the Legislature has not stepped in to enumerate it as one of the packing materials. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be justified. 5. Hence we answer this reference in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference answered in favour of Revenue.