Judgment :- K.K. Usha, J. Revision, at the instance of the Revenue, arises out of an order passed by the Sales-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam in T. A. 893/90 dated. 12.2.1993. Following questions of law are raised for decision of this Court: i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case is the Tribunal right in finding that the assessee has sold same articles which he has purchased from his purchaser? ii) Is not cutting and sizing and also the covering by cloth result in a new article commercially different from what has been purchased by the assessee? iii) Is the finding and conclusion are arrived at by the Tribunal justified in law?" 2. Respondent is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Apt, 1963. He is a dealer in form rubber mattress, pillows and cushions etc. While completing the assessment for the year 1986-87, assessing authority rejecting the return and accounts of the assessee and estimated sales turnover by adding 20% towards manufacturing expenses and gross profit to the purchase cost of goods sold by the assessees during the year. Assessing authority did not accept the claim for exemption put forward by the assessee on the turnover of form bed, cushions and pillows etc., on the ground of second sale. Assessing authority took the view that beds etc., sold by the assessee are different commodities from form rubber sheets and clothes separately purchased by it. First appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. But, on second appeal, Tribunal took the view that what is purchased by the assessee are articles of formed rubber and it is the very same thing which is being sold. Therefore, levy of tax is called for only at first point, which was satisfied at the point of purchase made by the assessee. Therefore, at the point of its sale, no levy of tax is called for. Direction was therefore, given to grant exemption for sales turnover of beds, cushions, pillows etc. sold out of tax suffered purchases made by the assessee. 3. Therefore, at the point of its sale, no levy of tax is called for. Direction was therefore, given to grant exemption for sales turnover of beds, cushions, pillows etc. sold out of tax suffered purchases made by the assessee. 3. Entry 93 under Schedule I to the Kerala General Sales Tax reads as follows: Sl No Description of goods Point of levy Rate of Tax 93 Formed rubber sheets, Cushions, pillows and Other articles of Foamed rubber At the point of first sale In the state by a dealer Who is liable to tax under Section 515 4. There is no dispute that the assessee is purchasing foamed rubber sheets and after slicing the same to a shape and covering it with cloth, it is being sold as bed. But as far as pillows and cushions are concerned, assessee purchases moulded pillows and cushions and they are sold after covering with cloths. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner submits that foamed rubber sheet is shown as a separate item in Enty 93. Even if it is to be taken that bed sold by the assessee would come within the item'oilier articles of foamed rubber', assessee cannot contend that he is selling'the same article which he had purchased. According to learned Government Pleader, in commercial parlance, foamed rubber sheet is a different article from the bed made out of it Therefore, the sale of bed by the assessee is liable to be taxed. He relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court in support of his contention, namely, Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills Association. & Ann v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1993) 91 STC 408 and Vijayalaxmi Cashew Co. & Ors. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer & Am: (1996) 100 STC 571. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, would contend that the foamed rubber sheets purchased by the assessee and the beds sold by it are one and the same. Reliance was placed on the following decisions by the learned counsel: A.A. Sulaiman v. Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax (1997) 105 STC 324, Bangalore Wood Industries v. Asst Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment), Hassan & Ann (1994) 92 STC 603, Namputhiris Pickle Industries v. State of Kerala Ann (1994) 92 STC 1 and 'New Nagpur Copra Industries v. The State of Maharashtra & anr. (1985) 60 STC 380. 6. Commissioner of Sales Tax (1997) 105 STC 324, Bangalore Wood Industries v. Asst Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment), Hassan & Ann (1994) 92 STC 603, Namputhiris Pickle Industries v. State of Kerala Ann (1994) 92 STC 1 and 'New Nagpur Copra Industries v. The State of Maharashtra & anr. (1985) 60 STC 380. 6. In 105 STC 324 supra, Supreme Court held that a dealer who purchases dry bones and converts them into bone meal for sale as such in the market is not liable to pay purchase tax under S.5A(1)of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. to 92 STC 603 supra, High Court of Karnataka considered the question whether there is consumption of timber in manufacture of goods for sale, when the assessee purchases timber and cut it into sizes, planks etc., for sale. A Full Bench of this Court, in 92 STC,1 supra, took the view that chillies and chilli powder are not different commercial commodities and sale of chilli powder produced out of chillies which have suffered tax, is not liable to tax. In 60 STC 380 supra, High Court of Bombay to ok the view that copra powder is not different from copra since the substance of copra by crushing does not undergo change of substantial character. 7. In 91 STC 408, Supreme Court had surveyed all the earlier important decisions on this issues and camp to the conclusion that when wheat is consumed for producing flour or maida or suji, commodities obtained are different commodities from wheat. After referring to the three earlier decisions, namely, Ganesh Trading Co. v. State of Haryana, (1973) 32 STC 623, Babu Ram Jagdish Kumar & Co. v. State of Punjab, (1979) 44 STC 159 & State of Karnataka v. Raghurama Shetty, (1981) 47 STC 369,Supreme Court observed as follows: "The principle of all these three decisions is that where certain goods are consumed to bring into existence different goods different in commercial and common parlance - both of them must be treated as different goods." 8. By applying the principle involved in 91 STC 408 supra, we are of the view that foamed rubber sheets purchased by the assessee and the bed or mattress made out of it and brought to sale by the assessee are different goods in commercial parlance. The foamed rubber sheets can be used for many purposes. By applying the principle involved in 91 STC 408 supra, we are of the view that foamed rubber sheets purchased by the assessee and the bed or mattress made out of it and brought to sale by the assessee are different goods in commercial parlance. The foamed rubber sheets can be used for many purposes. One such use is making of bed or mattress. Mattress cannot be made by a mere covering of the foamed rubber sheet with cloth. Admittedly, the foamed rubber sheet had to be cut and shaped and then 5 covered by the cloth to make mattress. After such process in which the rubber sheets are consumed, a different product in commercial parlance or common parlance, namely the mattress or the bed is being sold by the assessee. But, as far as pillows. and cushions are concerned, Revenue has no case that the assessee is shaping it in the form of pillows and cushions from rubber sheets. Assessee purchases moulded pillows and cushions. The additional work done by the assessee is only covering it with cloth. We cannot consider that the moulded pillows and cushions which the assessee purchased and the pillows and cushions which he has sold by covering the same with cloth, are different commodities. 9. In view of the above, we hold that the Tribunal has erred in finding that the assessee had sold same article when he purchased foamed rubber sheets and sold mattresses or beds. Cutting and sizing of the foamed rubber sheets and covering it with cloth would result in a new article commercially different from what has been purchased by the assessee. To .that extent, the finding of the Tribunal is held erroneous in law. But as far as pillows and cushions are concerned, we uphold the finding of the Tribunal. The Tax Revision case is disposed of as above.