JUDGMENT K. K. Usha, J. – These tax revision cases at the instance of Revenue arise out of a common order passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode, in T.A. Nos. 241 to 244 of 1991. Relevant assessment years are 1982-83 to 1985-86. The common question that has to be considered in these cases is whether the commodities dealt in by the assessee, viz., wood preservative oil and rosin oil would come under entry 72 in the First Schedule or whether tax has to be collected in respect of these items as unclassified items. 2. For the years 1982-83 to 1984-85 originally assessment orders were issued on March 12, 1987, June 29, 1985 and May 20, 1986 respectively treating the commodities as unclassified items. Later, the assessing authority invoked its powers under section 19 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and rectified assessment orders were issued treating the above commodities as items coming under entry 72 as classified items. For the year 1985-86 even the original assessment was on the basis that these commodities would come under entry 72, appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed by the first appellate authority under a common order dated June 16, 1990 relying on the clarification issued by the Government in G.O. (P) No. 31190 dated March 7, 1990 to the effect that wood preservative oil would be treated as item coming under entry 133 of the First Schedule to the Act taxable at 10 per cent (which is equivalent to entry 72 prior to the amendment). There was no specific consideration of the contentions raised regarding the rosin oil. Aggrieved by the above, the assessee filed second appeal before the Tribunal. The Additional Bench, Kozhikode, of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed all the appeals by a common order dated October 24, 1991. The second appellate authority took the view that since wood preservative oil is not included specifically under entry 72, it is not fair to include the above item under entry 72 of the First Schedule. It also took the view in the light of the decision of this Court in Travancore Chemical & Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1991] 81 STC 313, that the clarification issued by the Government under section 59 has no binding force. As regards rosin oil also similar view was taken by the Tribunal. 3. It also took the view in the light of the decision of this Court in Travancore Chemical & Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1991] 81 STC 313, that the clarification issued by the Government under section 59 has no binding force. As regards rosin oil also similar view was taken by the Tribunal. 3. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that no authority had properly considered the issue arising in this case. No attempt was taken to find out the exact nature of commodities dealt in by the assessee in the name A wood preservative oil and rosin oil. Even though there was some reference to the components of the item, wood preservative oil, in the assessment order, the assessing authority has also not properly appreciated the question involved. The learned Government Pleader points out that some of the items included in entry 72 are wood preservative oils. Entry 72 reads as follows : ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sl. Description of goods Point of levy Rate of tax No. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 72. Paints, colours lacquers, At the point of first 10 pigments, polishes, indigo, sale in the State by a enamel, putty, bale oil, dealer who is liable to turpentine oil and thinners. tax under section 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Turpentine oil can be used as a wood preservative oil. Apparently one of the major constituents of the product dealt with by the assessee is turpentine oil. But what exactly is the ratio between the constituents has not been examined. The assessing authority has pointed out that cashew shell oil is used only for the purpose of colouring. The learned Government Pleader also pointed out that mineral turpentine which is also a wood preservative oil has been included in item 56G. According to the learned Government Pleader, the authorities should have first identified the real nature of the product dealt with by the assessee by the name wood preservative oil and it has to be further examined whether such a product would come within any of the entries. Without doing so, the Tribunal has treated the commodities as unclassified. According to the learned Government Pleader, the authorities should have first identified the real nature of the product dealt with by the assessee by the name wood preservative oil and it has to be further examined whether such a product would come within any of the entries. Without doing so, the Tribunal has treated the commodities as unclassified. The learned Government Pleader referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in T. V. L. Nilsin Industries v. State of Tamil Nadu [1997] 106 STC 598 where after analysing the use to which the immediately is put to, the manner in which it is understood in common parlance by the business community, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that "neel" is a "pigment" failing within entry 1 10 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and does not fall under "dyes and chemicals not otherwise specified" in entry 1 and chemicals not otherwise specified" in entry 138 of the Schedule. According to the learned Government Pleader, analysis of similar nature should have been done by the authorities before coming to the conclusion that the commodity which is called by the assessee as wood preservative oil would not come within entry 72 or 56G of the First Schedule. 4. As regards the other commodity, viz., rosin oil the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader is that the commodity would come within item 172 of the First Schedule. According to the learned Government Pleader, rosin and rosin oil are one and the same and therefore there is no justification in including it among unclassified item. But on this aspect also there was no proper consideration by the authorities for identifying the commodity. He, therefore, submits that the matter has to he remanded back for fresh consideration by the assessing authority. It is for the assessee to satisfy the assessing authority that going by the constituents of the commodity, wood preservative oil, it would not come within entry 72 or 56G and that the rosin oil would not come within entry 172 or entry 72. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee would submit that so long as wood preservative oil as such is not included as an item in entry 72 there is no justification for the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader that the above commodity cannot be treated as unclassified item. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee would submit that so long as wood preservative oil as such is not included as an item in entry 72 there is no justification for the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader that the above commodity cannot be treated as unclassified item. He also contended that the commodity being dealt with by the assessee is rosin oil and not rosin, which is included under entry 172. Therefore, rosin oil has also to be treated as unclassified. 6. We find that the orders passed by both the appellate authorities are quite unsatisfactory. The real issue involved in this case has not been considered by these authorities. The learned Government Pleader, is fully justified in contending that it requires a detailed analysis to find out whether a commodity wood preservative oil dealt with by the assessee would come within entry 72 or 172. For the above purpose the assessee has to furnish all the details regarding the components of the commodity and also its proportion. The authorities have also to examine as to how the commodity is understood the commercial world. As mentioned earlier, turpentine or mineral turpentine can also be wood preservative od. Merely because one dealer chooses to call it "wood preservative oil" it would not cease to be an item under 72 or 56G. So also it is necessary for the assessee to explain the use to which rosin oil is split to and the difference between rosin and rosin oil. Ultimate decision has to be taken by the authority on the basis of the material thus supplied by the assessee and also on the basis of scientific material and the understanding of the commodity in the commercial world. We therefore set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as the first appellate authority and remand the matter for fresh consideration by the assessing authority in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. The assessing authority will issue notice and give proper opportunity to the assessee to produce sufficient materials in support of its contention. After reconsidering the entire matter, as directed in this judgment, modification if necessary can be made by the assessing authority in the assessment orders for the years 1982-83 to 1985-86. The tax revision cases are allowed as above. Petition allowed.