ORDER CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD, J. - A resolution was published in the M.P. Gazette dated October 25, 1991, which reads as follows : "Applicability of export tax in the limits of the Municipal Corporation, Katni (Murwara). The export tax will be levied in the limits of the municipal corporation as per the Schedule given below which will be payable to the municipal corporation : SCHEDULE ------------------------------------------------------------------------ S. No. Name of article Tax proposed (1) (2) (3) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 All types of cement 1/2 per cent of the cost of the consignment. 2 Materials made of cement 1 per cent of the cost of article. 3 ................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PRABHUNSHU KAMAL, Administrator." 2. M.P. No. 1380 of 1994 : The grievance of the petitioner is that although the petitioner exported refractories and not the cement or any type of cement, yet export tax, in pursuance of the aforesaid resolution is being charged. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the petitioner earlier filed M.P. No. 4325 of 1991 and a Division Bench of this Court by order dated February 18, 1994 disposed of the writ petition with the following direction : "(1) The second respondent shall after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, record a decision as to whether refractory is a form of cement subject to export tax or a product of cement subject to export tax or not, and communicate the decision to the petitioner; (2) Till such decision is arrived at, the petitioner shall not be compelled to pay export tax on refractory exported up to October 30, 1993 subject to the condition that the petitioner filed affidavit before the second respondent within two weeks from today agreeing to pay arrears of tax in case the decision as aforesaid goes against them; and (3) The second respondent shall record the decision within 30 days from today." Thereafter, as directed by this Court the Administrator vide its order dated March 30, 1994 held that the petitioner manufactured high alumina binder (refractory) which, in fact is high alumina cement and as such liable for export tax, in view of the aforesaid resolution of the Municipal Corporation. The petitioner impugns the aforesaid order of the Administrator and prays for a declaration that refractory manufactured by it does not come within the expression "all types of cement" and thus not liable to pay export tax. 3. The petitioner impugns the aforesaid order of the Administrator and prays for a declaration that refractory manufactured by it does not come within the expression "all types of cement" and thus not liable to pay export tax. 3. M.P. No. 1513 of 1994 : In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the order passed by respondent No. 2 i.e., municipal corporation, whereby it has been held that waterproofing compound sold under the brand name Accoproof is a type of cement and in view of the resolution referred to above, export tax is leviable on the said product. It is the stand of the petitioner that the product waterproofing compound manufactured by the petitioner does not fall in any of the items including the item "all types of cement" mentioned in the notification. 4. I will deal with each of the cases separately. 5. In M.P. No. 1380 of 1994, the stand of the petitioner is that it manufactures, fire bricks, fire clay mortars, ramming masses with a trade name - Accoset-50, Accoset Super, high alumina refractory binder with trade name Calandum, refractory castables called fire crete and fire crete super, whytheat castables which are used for high duty refractory purposes. According to the petitioner these products are purely refractory materials and are used in furnaces and kilns to withstand high temperature corrosion and abrasion. It is the stand of the petitioner that cement can not be used for the purpose for which the above products are used. These refractory products according to the petitioner, are not at all usable in place of normal portland cement or any constructional cement. It is stated that these are not bye-products of cement. In the present case I am concerned with high alumina refractory binder. 6. According to the petitioner the manufacturing process of cement and that of the refractories, manufactured by it are totally different and the plant of the petitioner which is manufacturing refractories cannot be converted or used for manufacturing any type of cement. It is contended that the licence issued by the Chief Inspector of Factories is also for manufacture of fire bricks and refractories and under the terms of license also, it cannot manufacture cement. 7. It is the stand of the petitioner that the raw materials required for manufacturing refractories are entirely different from those required for the manufacture of cement. It is contended that the licence issued by the Chief Inspector of Factories is also for manufacture of fire bricks and refractories and under the terms of license also, it cannot manufacture cement. 7. It is the stand of the petitioner that the raw materials required for manufacturing refractories are entirely different from those required for the manufacture of cement. It is their stand that for manufacture of cement the main raw material is limestone, silicious clay and gypsum; bauxite and fire clay are not used for the manufacture of cement. However, for manufacture of refractories the major raw material is bauxite, kyanite and fire clays. 8. According to the petitioner, the chemical composition of cement is entirely different from that of refractories. The criteria of test for a normal cement, according to the petitioner, is different from those for refractories. It is the stand of the petitioner that for constructional cement the most important criteria is its strength at ordinary temperature, whereas for the refractory materials the criteria it its refractoriness at high temperature, technically called P.C.E. value and the temperature at which the material gets its strength. According to the petitioner the skills required in the cement plant and those required in refractory plant is also entirely different. The petitioner has given the comparative table of the raw materials, process of manufacture, etc., to demonstrate that the refractory is not a type of cement. It is as follows : COMPARATIVE TABLE ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cement Refractory industry industry ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Raw materials : 1. Limestone .... Used Not used 2. Gypsum .... Used Not used 3. Silicious clay .... Used Not used 4. Bauxite .... Not used Used 5. Kyanite .... Not used Used 6. Fire clays .... Not used Used Products : 1. Portland cement Produced Not produced 2. White cement " " 3. Fire bricks Not produced Produced 4. Fireclay mortars " " 5. Ramming masses under trade name Accoset-50. " " 6. High alumina binder under trade name Calandum. " " 7. Refractory caslatics " " 8. Whytheat high duty caslatics " " 9. Acid proof accocid " " Chemical composition : Different from Different from refractory. cement. Process of manufacture : Different from Different from refractory. cement. Uses : Construction like buildings, dams, roads, etc. Used Prohibited Furnaces, kilns Not used Used Applicability to withstand high temperature corrosion and abrasion. Not used Used ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9. Whytheat high duty caslatics " " 9. Acid proof accocid " " Chemical composition : Different from Different from refractory. cement. Process of manufacture : Different from Different from refractory. cement. Uses : Construction like buildings, dams, roads, etc. Used Prohibited Furnaces, kilns Not used Used Applicability to withstand high temperature corrosion and abrasion. Not used Used ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9. The petitioner has stated that the company was earlier called "Katni Fire Bricks and Pottery Works", but subsequently its name has been changed as "Katni Refractory Works". A litigation between the employees and the company arose before the industrial court, in which the workers demanded that their wage be revised at par with the wage structure of the cement industry workers on the ground that the refractories manufactured by the petitioner be treated as a kind of cement. This stand of the workers was negatived by the industrial court vide its award dated September 20, 1994 and it has been held in the said award that the refractories cannot be said to be a kind of cement. On the aforesaid premises the stand of the petitioner is that the refractory does not come within the expression any type of cement and as such not liable to pay the export tax. 10. Return has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, i.e., the municipal corporation and their stand in the return is that the refractory material high alumina refractory binder manufactured by the petitioner comes within the definition of cement. It is their stand that the term "refractory binder" is another nomenclature for cement and the basic character of both are the same, i.e., both are binding agents. It is contented that the application of the two products may be different, but the same would not exclude refractory in question from the category of all types of cement. It is contented that the cement is used for the purposes of carrying out ordinary constriction work. Refractory has its uses in special fields and this difference in application is basically due to the character of the two. However, according to the answering respondent the basic feature of both remains the same. It is the stand of the respondents that the products manufactured by the petitioner are classified in two heads that is shaped items and unshaped items and export tax is being levied only on unshaped items. However, according to the answering respondent the basic feature of both remains the same. It is the stand of the respondents that the products manufactured by the petitioner are classified in two heads that is shaped items and unshaped items and export tax is being levied only on unshaped items. It is their stand that unshaped items include the product termed as high alumina refractory binder. It is contended by the respondent that the refractory is only a name under which the petitioner-company markets the product high alumina cement. 11. Further stand of the answering respondent, in the return, is that the company is paying Central excise duty on the product high alumina refractory binder which is an item on which Central excise is recoverable under the head "salt, sulphur, clay and stone, plastering materials; lime and cement" as enumerated in chapter 25 of the Excise Manual. The answering respondent states that the petitioner cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold in the same breath, i.e., the petitioner's paying the Central excise duty on the same product classified under the head cement, seeks to deny the payment of export tax on the same product under the impugned notification. 12. According to the answering respondent the only feature which distinguishes high alumina refractory binder/cement vis-a-vis the cement is the usage thereof. It is stated that the cement is used in normal construction work whereas high alumina refractory binder/cement is used in industrial purposes, but both are used as binding agent and for construction purposes, through in different fields. 13. As stated earlier the petitioner came up before this Court earlier and a Division Bench of this Court remitted the matter back to respondent No. 2 for its dicision. In assurance of the aforesaid order, the Administrator has passed the order dated March 30, 1994 in which he has held that the high alumina binder (refractory) produced by the petitioner, in fact, is high alumina which has been termed as high alumina refractory by the petitioner and it comes within the expression types of cement. 14. Shri Sanghi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the high alumina refractory is not cement and the finding recorded by the Administrator is incorrect. He submits that the basic material for manufacture of cement and that of the refractory being different the former cannot come within the expression types of cement. 14. Shri Sanghi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the high alumina refractory is not cement and the finding recorded by the Administrator is incorrect. He submits that the basic material for manufacture of cement and that of the refractory being different the former cannot come within the expression types of cement. He submits that the cement is binder and even if it is held that the refractory produced by the petitioner is a binder, every binder is not cement. He submits that gum besides other materials are, in fact, binder, but the same cannot be termed as cement. It is emphasised that the comparison of the raw material used for manufacturing of refractory and cement being different, refractory cannot be said to be a type of cement. 15. It is relevant here to state that the expression cement has not been defined. It is well-settled that while giving the meaning of a particular commodity the dictionary meaning and the technical meaning should not be adhered to and that in a taxing statute words of every day use must be construed not in their scientific or technical sense, but as understood in commercial parlance. However on the present case the product high alumina binder is not a product of every day use and it is used in specified field. Thus reference is required to be made to dictionaries and scientific book to understand the same. 16. Various dictionaries have defined the expression cement in the following terms : Chamber English Dictionary - 1989 Indian Edition : "Anything that makes two bodies stick together, mortar;" Websters New International Dictionary - "A substance used in a soft or pasty state to join stones or bricks in a building, to cover floors, etc., which afterwards becomes hard like stone; esp., a kind of strong mortar made with line, or a calcined mixture of clay and limestone." Randum House Dictionary - "Cement (si ment), n. 1. any of various soft, sticky substances that dry hard or stonelike, used esp. for making things adhere. 2. any of various calcined mixtures of clay and limestone, usually combined with a aggregate to form concrete, that are used as building material." 17. any of various soft, sticky substances that dry hard or stonelike, used esp. for making things adhere. 2. any of various calcined mixtures of clay and limestone, usually combined with a aggregate to form concrete, that are used as building material." 17. In concise Oxford Dictionary, VIIth Edition the cement has been defined as follows : "Cement : Substance applied as paste and hardening into stony consistence for binding together stones or bricks and for forming floors, walls, etc., strong mortar of calcined lime and clay. (Hydraulic - kind hardening under water); any substance applied soft for sticking things together; substance for filling teeth, bony substance surrounding root of tooth (FIG) principle that unites - mixture, machine (USU with revolving drum) for mixing cement with water. (2) Unit (AS) with cement (LIT or FIG) apply cement to lime or cover with cement, hence cementation (esp) heating of iron with charcoal powder to form steel ME of cement (f) (L) cementum quarry stone (Caedere How, see-MENT)." In the Indian Practical Civil Engineering the cement as also its types have been explained and enumerated as follows : "Types of cement. There are mainly five kinds of cements. Cements are classified by their properties and chemical composition. High alumina cement is used where it is required to impose loads on the concrete structure even earlier than that possible with rapid, hardening cement. It hardens much more rapidly than the common portland cement and also develops strength very early up to 75 per cent of its ultimate strength being attained during the first 24 fours after mixing. This cement gives off great heat during setting and cannot be used for massive structures. The speeding up of setting time can be brought about by mixing with it 1 to 2 per cent by weight of hydrated lime. No water proofers are necessary with this cement. It is highly resistant to sea water but is not suitable for very hot climates. Aluminous cement must not be mixed with other cement or lime mortars, or placed against portland cement concrete less than 7 days old. This cement is useful for emergency repair works." 18. In Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th Edition, the cement has been defined as follows : "Cement : The words cement is used to define adhesive substances. Aluminous cement must not be mixed with other cement or lime mortars, or placed against portland cement concrete less than 7 days old. This cement is useful for emergency repair works." 18. In Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th Edition, the cement has been defined as follows : "Cement : The words cement is used to define adhesive substances. It is derived from the Latin caementum, which meant stone chipping such as were used in Roman mortar, not the binding material itself. In its general sense it covers a wide variety of binding materials used for many different purposes, but more commonly it implies the binding materials used in building and civil engineering construction. These constructional cements which will set and harden under water, are often called hydraulic cements. The most important of these is portland cement. Others are the slag containing cements and high alumina cement. This article covers constructional cements. Adhesive cements are covered under adhesives. Cements are finely ground powders that when mixed with water, set to a hard mass, setting and hardening result from the hydration of the cement compounds, giving submicroscopic crystals or a gel like material with a high surface area. Cements may be used alone (i.e. 'neat' as grouting materials), but the normal use is in mortar and concrete in which the cement is mixed with inert material known as aggregate. Mortar is cement mixed with sand or crushed stoneless than 3/16 inch (4.8 millimetres) in size. Concrete is a mixture of cement, sand or other fine aggregate, and a coarse aggregate that for most purposes is up to 3/4 or 1 inch (1.9-2.5 centimeters) in size but that may also be as large as 6 inches (15 centimeters) for concrete place in large masses, as in dams, mortars are used for binding bricks, blocks, and stone in walls or as surface renderings. Concrete is used for a large variety of constructional purposes (see concrete). Mixtures of soil and portland cement are used as a base for roads. Portland cement also is used in the manufacture of asbestos cement sheets, pipes, tanks and other goods. Concrete is used for a large variety of constructional purposes (see concrete). Mixtures of soil and portland cement are used as a base for roads. Portland cement also is used in the manufacture of asbestos cement sheets, pipes, tanks and other goods. The products are made in a factory and supplied ready for installation in a building." In the said book, while describing the composition and properties of cements, one kind of cement referred is high alumina cement, the same reads as follows : "High alumina cement : High alumina cement is a rapid hardening cement made by fusing at 1,500 degree to 1,600 degree C, a mixture of bauxite and limestone in a reverberatory or electric furnace or in a rotary kiln. It also can be made by sintering at about 1,250 degree C. Suitable bauxite contain 50 to 60 per cent alumina, up to 25 per cent iron oxide, not more than 5 per cent silic, and 10 to 30 per cent water of hydration. The limestone must contain on the small amounts of silica and magnesia. The cement contains 30 to 40 per cent lime, 40 to 50 per cent alumina, up to 15 per cent iron oxide and preferably not more than about 6 per cent silica. The principal camenting compound is calcium aluminate (CaO. Al2O3). This cement gains a high proportion of its ultimate strength in 24 hours and has a high resistance to chemical attack. It also is used in refractory concretes for furnaces. A white form of the cement, containing minimal proportions of iron oxide and silica, has outstanding refractory properties." A reading of the aforesaid composition and properties of high alumina cement, it is apparent that the same is used in refractory concrete for furnaces. The Administrator in its order has held that the high alumina binder produced by the petitioner is noting but high alumina cement and is used in refractory, and comes within the expression types of cement. 19. Petitioner in the write petition has made a statement that it manufactures high alumina refractory binder, which are high duty refractory purposes. Refractories according to Encyclopaedia Britannica means : "Materials not deformed or damaged by high temperatures, used to make crucibles, incinerators, insulation and furnaces, particularly metallurgical furnaces. 19. Petitioner in the write petition has made a statement that it manufactures high alumina refractory binder, which are high duty refractory purposes. Refractories according to Encyclopaedia Britannica means : "Materials not deformed or damaged by high temperatures, used to make crucibles, incinerators, insulation and furnaces, particularly metallurgical furnaces. Refractories are produced in several forms molded bricks of various shapes (see also fire brick); bulk granular materials; plastic mixtures consisting of moistened aggregate that are rammed into place; castables composed of dry aggregates and a binder that can be mixed with water and poured like concrete; and mortars and cements for laying brick work. Refractories may be chemically acid, basic, or neutral, depending on the application. Silica (made from sand or quartzite), zircon (for extreme heat resistance), and fire clay (made by baking kaolin) are acid; magnesite and dolomite are alkaline; high aluminal refractories, mullite, chromite, silicon carbide, and carbon are neutral. Carbon is an excellent refractory in places where no oxygen can contact it, as in the hearth of a blast furnace. A smelting furnace lining must be acid if the slag is acid and basic if the slag is basic, so that it will not react and be eroded." 20. Thus, in my opinion refractory is a material which has the ability to retain its chemical property when subjected to high temperature. High alumina is refractory material which is chemically neutral and has ability to retain its physical property when subjected to high temperature. The petitioner on his own showing is manufacturing "high alumina refractory binder", which will mean that the high alumina is used as binder for refractory and this is a kind of cement. Thus, I negative the submission of Shri Sanghi that "refractory high alumina binder" is not a type of cement. By way of caution I may state that each and every refractory may not necessarily come within the expression type of cement but refractory high alumina binder, in my considered opinion is a type of cement. 21. Shri Sanghi submits that the high alumina refractory binder is not cement and in support of his submission the learned counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Southern Refractories & Minerals v. State of Tamil Nadu [1991] 81 STC 387. 21. Shri Sanghi submits that the high alumina refractory binder is not cement and in support of his submission the learned counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Southern Refractories & Minerals v. State of Tamil Nadu [1991] 81 STC 387. My attention has been drawn to the following paragraph of the aforesaid Judgment : "Having carefully considered the above referred to arguments of both the counsel and going through the relevant documents filed by the assessee and the above referred to Supreme Court and High Court decisions, we hold that, taking into account the popular commercial meaning of the term 'cement', the above referred to refractory materials of the two assessees in these four revision cases cannot fall under the abovesaid item 34 both before the above referred amendment and after. The Tribunal's decision rested on [1974] 33 STC 556 (All.) (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mango Mal Nanak Ram). But though [1974] 33 STC 556 (All.) (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mango Mal Nanak Ram) generally deals with both 'white cement' and 'refractory cement', it actually discussed only about white cement and not refractory material. So [1974] 33 STC 566 (All.) (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mango Mal Nanak Ram) cannot be relied on, with reference to the refractory materials of the assessees in the present case." 22. In the aforesaid case the question which fell for consideration before the Madras High Court was as to whether the refractory material called cumicrete sold by the assessee would fall under item No. 34 which pertains to cement. In the background of the aforesaid fact the learned judges held that cumicrete is not cement. However, in the present case the petitioner is manufacturing, what he terms to be high alumina binder, which the answering respondents names as high alumina cement and held as such. In that view of the matter the authority relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly distinguishable. It is relevant here to state that the answering respondent in the return has specifically taken a stand that the petitioner-company is producing shaped and unshaped items and export tax is being leviable on unshaped items only and the high alumina refractory binder comes under the unshaped items. It is relevant here to state that the answering respondent in the return has specifically taken a stand that the petitioner-company is producing shaped and unshaped items and export tax is being leviable on unshaped items only and the high alumina refractory binder comes under the unshaped items. Even at the cost of repetition I may state that there are refractories which are not cement for instance cumicrete considered in the Madras judgment, but high alumina although a refractory material, is a type of cement. Every refractory may not be cement, but product like high alumina is a type of cement. 23. Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mango Mal Nanak Ram [1974] 33 STC 556, had the occasion to consider this aspect of the matter. In the said cases question referred for opinion was "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, white cement, refractory cement and cement are the same commodity and the turnover of white cement and refractory cement should have been taxed as turnover of cement at 7 per cent under Notification No. ST-6438/X-1012-1962 dated December 1, 1962 ?" While answering the aforesaid question, the court held as follows : "The word 'cement' not having been defined in the Act or in the Rules, it has to be understood as in common parlance. Cement is a commodity of everyday use. White cement is only a special variety of ordinary cement which is grey in colour. Ordinary cements is most extensively used as a building material. The white cement or refractory cement is also used as a building material, but sparingly because of its high price. White cement is ordinarily used in flooring and other decorative cement works." "These observations are fully applicable to the case before us. In common parlance and in commercial sense the word 'cement' would include all varieties of cement. Unless the Legislature makes a distinction between different varieties of cement, the word 'cement' by itself would include all kinds and varieties of cement. White cement, as we have already observed, is only a variety of cement." 24. And ultimately the reference was answered in the affirmative in favour of the department and against the assessee. 25. The petitioner on his own showing is manufacturing "high alumina refractory binder", which will mean that the high alumina is used as binder in refractory. White cement, as we have already observed, is only a variety of cement." 24. And ultimately the reference was answered in the affirmative in favour of the department and against the assessee. 25. The petitioner on his own showing is manufacturing "high alumina refractory binder", which will mean that the high alumina is used as binder in refractory. In my opinion, it is a refractory material used as binder which is chemically neutral and having the ability to retain its identity when subjected to high temperature. Mere application of this product in different field, i.e. refractory will not exclude it from the category of cement. The difference in application according to me is one the ground of its character, but its basic feature is the same and it is a kind of cement. It too makes two bodies stick together and it becomes hard or stonelike afterwards. Indian Practical Civil Engineering and Encyclopaedia Britannica shows that this product is a type of cement. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the answering respondent is right in treating the product coming within the expression "types of cement". 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that the Industrial Tribunal in its award dated March 30, 1994 having held that the wage structure of cement industry shall not be applicable to the workers of the petitioner industry, clearly shows that the product sought to be taxed is not liable to be taxed is not cement. The aforesaid lis pertains to the wages of the workers and cannot have bearing on the question as to whether the refractory in question is cement or not. Further petitioner is manufacturing various other refractories which may or may not come under the expression cement. Thus, the reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the aforesaid award is clearly misplaced. 27. There is yet another reason to decline the relief sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner is paying Central excise duty on the product high alumina refractory binder under item salt, sulphur, clay and stone, plastering material : Lime and Cement as contained in chapter 25 of the Excise Manual. 27. There is yet another reason to decline the relief sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner is paying Central excise duty on the product high alumina refractory binder under item salt, sulphur, clay and stone, plastering material : Lime and Cement as contained in chapter 25 of the Excise Manual. This may not be decisive but the said fact has not been disputed and the petitioner has accepted the liability to pay the Central excise under the aforesaid head, I am of the view, that in the facts of the present case, the petitioner cannot wriggle out from the liability under the notification in question. Thus, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. 28. M.P. No. 1513 of 1994 : In this writ petition also the stand of the petitioner is that the water proofing compound sold under the brand name Accoproof does not come within the expression any type of cement and, therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay export tax under the resolution referred to above. The petitioner made a grievance about the same before the answering respondent, but the same has been negatived. 29. According to the petitioner the product in question is neither a cement nor it is a kind of cement nor it is sold as such. It is the stand of the petitioner that it is not a substitute for cement and the same is used for filling the pores in concrete or cement mortar which prevents the passage of water. The petitioner further states that the raw materials for manufacturing of cement is limestone and gypsum and laterite whereas the raw material for petitioner's product is stearic acid (additir) and quick lime and the manufacturing process of cement and that of the petitioner's product are entirely different. It is stated that the petitioner's product is manufactured by a very simple manufacturing process and the product is old in small pouches. 30. It is the stand of the petitioner that its product was not treated as cement for levy of excise duty under the Central Excise Act. It is stated that the petitioner's product is manufactured by a very simple manufacturing process and the product is old in small pouches. 30. It is the stand of the petitioner that its product was not treated as cement for levy of excise duty under the Central Excise Act. It is stated that chapter 25, item 25.01 covers cement, cement clinkers and all sorts of cement, but the petitioner's product was not covered under the said item for the purpose of excise duty, but the same has been levied under chapter 29, residuary clause 2915.90 and the same deals with organic chemicals. In view of the aforesaid fact that the product in question was levied for excise duty under the head Organic Chemicals and not under cement or all sorts of cement, the action of the respondents in levying export tax on the said product as a kind of cement is clearly illegal. 31. Shri Sapre, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that when the product of the petitioner has been identified as organic chemicals under the excise law it cannot be identified as different product under the another taxing statue. It is his submission that once the excise authorities have held the product to be an organic chemical, the same cannot come within the expression all types of cement under the resolution of the municipal corporation. In this connection my attention has been drawn to the order of the Assistant Collector dated November 19, 1992 in which he has held as follows : "In view of above discussion and findings I hereby approve water proofing compound for classification under chapter sub-heading 2915.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) and batch mixture of clay broken stone-ware pipes and sand mentioned at Sr. No. 4 of classification list No. 19/91-92 with effect from August 19, 1991 under chapter heading 2505 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986)." 32. No. 4 of classification list No. 19/91-92 with effect from August 19, 1991 under chapter heading 2505 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986)." 32. Shri Agrawal, however appearing on behalf of the answering respondent submits that the finding recorded by the Assistant Collector is not binding on the answering respondent and he further submits that the finding arrived at by the petitioner-company itself advertise it product Accoproof and explains the use of its product on packing plastic cover as under : "Waterproofing compound : Accoproof, the cement waterproofing compound contains a water repellent admixture which fills the pores in concrete or cement mortar and prevents the passage of water. It acts as an additional safeguard against leaks." 33. Shri Agrawal referring to the own admission of the petitioner in the cover of the product itself submits that the petitioner itself understood the product to be a kind of cement and, therefore, it is liable to pay export duty under the heading all types of cement. 34. Various meanings of the word "cement" has been reproduced in the preceding paragraph of this order. A reading thereof makes it plain that the cement is an adhesive substance used as binding material and used for many different purposes. According to the petitioner's own projection the same is used in building in every engineering construction to stop passage of water. Thus the product is an adhesive substance used in building construction. Thus, I am of the considered view that the product Accoproof of the petitioner comes within the expression all types of cement. Having held so, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot take assistance from the order of identification by the Additional Collector referred to above. The classification of an item by the excise authority may be relevant but not decisive. 35. The resolution uses the expression all types of cement. Every word used under resolution has to be given some meaning. In my opinion, the expression referred to above has to be understood in the way that any kind of cement coming within the expression cement, has to be brought under the aforesaid expressions. As held earlier, the high alumina binders as also Accoproof are kinds of cement and in that view of the matter liable for export duty under the resolution. 36. As held earlier, the high alumina binders as also Accoproof are kinds of cement and in that view of the matter liable for export duty under the resolution. 36. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in either of the writ petitions and they are dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Petitions dismissed.