Judgment :- JANARTHANAM, J. Desirable it is, on the facts and in the circumstances of all these cases, to pen down a common order. The issues involved in all these actions is one and the same relatable to the same assessee for the four assessment years, that is to say, from 1977-78 to 1980-81. 2. The assessee, it is said, marketed tarpaulins and the tarpaulins so marketed were made from processed canvas. The operation done by the assessee in making a tarpaulin from the processed canvas consists of cutting the processed canvas into the required sizes and stitching the edges, besides providing eyelets, so as to enable the same to be used for covering the cargo while being transported, in order to protect from the ravage to be caused by rain. 3. The assessee had the following sales turnover of tarpaulins for the relevant assessment years, as below : (i) 1977-78. ... Rs. 12, 80, 841 (ii) 1978-79 ... Rs. 14, 72, 240 (iii) 1979-80 ... Rs. 18, 60, 371 (iv) 1980-81 ... Rs. 17, 61, 767 4. In respect of these turnovers the assessee claimed exemption from tax, pursuant to entry 4 of the Third Schedule read with section8 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act No. 1 of 1959 - for short, "the TNGST Act"). 5. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Assessment Zone II, Madras, rejected the claim so made in respect of those assessment years. 6. The assessee further agitated the matter, by way of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT)-I, Kuralagam Annexe, Madras-103. There also, he faced dismal failure, in the sense of all the appeals so filed in that respect having been dismissed, confirming the orders of the assessing officer. 7. On further appeals, before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Madras-104 (for short, "the Tribunal"), the assessee, succeeded, in the sense of all the appeals having been allowed and giving the relief as had been prayed for. 8. Consequently, the Revenue resorted to the present actions - T.C. (R) Nos. 892 to 895 of 1995. 9. 7. On further appeals, before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Madras-104 (for short, "the Tribunal"), the assessee, succeeded, in the sense of all the appeals having been allowed and giving the relief as had been prayed for. 8. Consequently, the Revenue resorted to the present actions - T.C. (R) Nos. 892 to 895 of 1995. 9. The common question that arises for decision, in all these actions, is : "Whether, the assessee's cotton canvas, being cut into various sizes, stitching edges and providing eyelets and marketed in the name of 'tarpaulin' will fall under the classification of 'cotton fabrics' under entry No. 4 of the Third Schedule to the TNGST Act ?" * 10. The answer to the question posed as above, we rather feel, is capable of being answered, with ease and grace and without any difficulty whatever, if we analyse the purport and intentment of the original entry No. 4 and the substituted entry No. 4, which came into effect from April 1, 1974, in the Third Schedule of the TNGST Act. (a) the original entry No. 4 reads as under : "All varieties of textiles (other than durries, carpets, druggets and pure silk cloth) made wholly or partly of cotton, staple fibre, rayon, artificial silk or wool including handkerchiefs, towels, napkins, dusters, cotton velvets and velveteen, tapes, niwars and laces and hosiery cloth in lengths." * (b) The substituted entry No. 4, with effect from April 1, 1974 reads as under : "Cotton fabrics, woollen fabrics and rayon or artificial silk fabrics, as defused in items 19, 21 and 22 respectively of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Central Act 1 of 1944)." 11. The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax (Third Amendment) Act, 1974 (Act No. 37 of 1974) inserted and substituted entry No. 4, as above, with effect from April 1, 1974 and the relevant portion of the Statement of Objects and Reasons, as is necessary for our present purpose, for such insertion or substitution, is as below : "Under entry 4 in the Third Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1959), all varieties of textiles as described therein were exempt from liability to tax under the Act. The use of the term 'textiles' which covers a wide range of articles, had resulted in certain doubts and difficulties in interpreting the term in regard to its application to certain varieties of fabrics such as processed cloth, P.V.C. cloth, rexine, etc. In the case of textiles, the exemption was given because of the levy of additional excise duty on this article under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (Central Act 58 of 1957) and in view of the general agreement that in respect of articles on which additional excise duty has been levied by the Central Government, the States should not levy sales tax, as a part of the proceeds of the additional excise duty have to be shared by the States. It has, therefore, been considered necessary that the definition of the commodity as found in entry 4 in the Third Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 12. Item No. 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Central Act No. 1 of 1944 - for short "the CESA") reads as under : Item No. 19 - Cotton fabrics "Item Description of goods Rate of duty No. ------------------------- Basic Addi- Hand- duty tional loom duty cess (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 19. Cotton fabrics - 'Cotton fabrics' means all varieties of fabrics manufactured either wholly or partly from cotton and includes dhoties, sarees, chadders, bed-sheets, bed-spreads, counter-panes, table-cloths, embroidery in the piece, in strips or in motifs, fabrics impregnated, coated or laminated with preparations of cellulose derivatives or of other artificial plastic materials and fabrics covered partially or fully with textile flocks or with preparations containing textile flocks; if (i) in such fabrics cotton predominates in weight, or (ii) such fabrics contain more than 40 per cent. by weight of cotton and 50 per cent. by weight of cotton and 50 per cent. or more by weight of non-cellulosic fibres of yarn or both : Provided that in the case of embroidery in the piece, in strips or in motifs, fabrics impregnated, coated or laminated with preparations of cellulose derivatives or of other artificial plastic materials, and fabrics covered partially or fully with textile flocks or with preparations containing textile flocks, such predominance or percentages, as the case may be, shall be in relation to the base fabrics which are embroidered or impregnated, coated or laminated or covered, as the case may be - I. Cotton fabrics, other than (i) embroidery in the piece, in strips or in motifs, (ii) fabrics impregnated, coated or laminated with preparations of cellulose derivatives or of other artificial plastic materials and (iii) fabrics covered partially or fully with textile flocks or with preparations containing textile flocks - (a) cotton fabrics, not Twenty per cent. Five per 1.9 paise subjected to any process. ad valorem. cent. ad per sq.m. valorem.(b) cotton fabrics, subjected Twenty per cent. Five per 1.9 paise to the process ad valorem. cent. ad per sq.m. of bleaching, mer- valorem. cerising, dyeing, printing, water- proofing, rubberising, shrink-proofing, organdie processing or any other process or any two or more of these processes. II. Embroidery in the piece, The duty for the The duty The handloom in strips or in motifs, or time being for the cess for the in relation to the manufacture leviable on the time time being of which any base fabrics, if being leviable process is ordinarily carried not already paid, leviable on the base on with the aid of power plus twenty per on the fabrics if not cent. ad valorem. base already paid. fabrics if not already paid. III. Cotton fabrics impregnated The duty for the Do. Do. coated or laminated with time being preparations of cellulose leviable on the derivatives or of other base fabrics, if artificial plastic materials. not already paid plus thirty per cent. ad valorem. IV. Cotton fabrics covered The duty for the Do. Do. partially or fully with time being textile flocks or with leviable on the preparations containing base fabrics, if textile flocks, such as not already paid, flock-printed fabrics and plus thirty per flock-coated fabrics. cent. not already paid plus thirty per cent. ad valorem. IV. Cotton fabrics covered The duty for the Do. Do. partially or fully with time being textile flocks or with leviable on the preparations containing base fabrics, if textile flocks, such as not already paid, flock-printed fabrics and plus thirty per flock-coated fabrics. cent. ad valorem Explanation I. - "Base fabrics" means fabrics falling under sub-item I of this item which are subjected to the process of embroidery or which are impregnated, coated or laminated with preparations of cellulose derivatives or of other plastic materials or which are covered partially or fully with textile flocks or with preparations containing textile flocks. Explanation II. - Where two or more of the following fibres, that is to say, - (a) man-made fibre of cellulosic origin;(b) cotton; (c) wool; (d) silk (including silk coil); (e) jute (including Bimlipatam jute or mesta fibre); (f) man-made fibre of non-cellulosic origin; (g) flax; (h) ramie; if any fabrics are equal in weight, then, such one of those fibres the predominance of which would render such fabric fall under that item (hereafter in the explanation referred to as the applicable item) among the item Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 22-A and 22-AA, which, read with the relevant notifications, if any, for the time being in force issued under the Central Excise Rules, 1944, involves the highest amount of duty, shall be deemed to be predominant in such fabric and accordingly such fabric shall be deemed to fall under the applicable item. Explanation III. - This item does not include floor coverings, failing under item No. 22G." 13. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee as well as for the Revenue drew our attention to many a decision of superior courts of jurisdiction considering the interpretation of the original entry No. 4, "textiles" and the substituted entry No. 4 - "Cotton fabrics", we may now proceed to refer to some of the precedents inviting our attention. (a) In State of Tamil Nadu v. East India Rubber Works the question that fell for consideration was whether the sales of waterproof cloth will be exempted from tax, as failing under the original entry No. 4 in the Third Schedule of the TNGST Act. (a) In State of Tamil Nadu v. East India Rubber Works the question that fell for consideration was whether the sales of waterproof cloth will be exempted from tax, as failing under the original entry No. 4 in the Third Schedule of the TNGST Act. A division Bench of this Court said : "Waterproof cloth, such as rexine, P.V.C cloth, rubberised or synthetic waterproof fabrics, etc., made with cloth as base, are not textiles falling within item 4 of Schedule III of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, inasmuch as the processed articles have different properties and characteristics and are intended for different use, and in commercial circles they are treated as entirely different from cloth or textile.Item 4 of Schedule III should be construed independent of any definition given under any other statute. The proper test is to find out whether after the application of rubber or P.V.C. solution the base cloth continues to be cloth or whether it has become a different product intended for a different user. Though item 4 of Schedule III begins with the words, 'all varieties of textiles' the words 'all varieties' cannot be taken to control or affect the true construction of the word 'textiles'. The Legislature has used the words 'all varieties' for the purpose of bringing within the ambit of the expression 'all varieties of textiles' provided they satisfy the basic requirement that they are 'textiles'. As the word 'textile' has not been defined in the Act, it must be interpreted according to its ordinary or popular sense, the sense in which they are commonly understood in ordinary parlance and not in its primary or technical sense." (b) In Jeewajee & Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu the question that arose for consideration was as to whether the processed canvas cloth, out of which tarpaulin was made, is "textile" falling under item No. 4 of the Third Schedule to the TNGST Act. (i) The assessee cut processed canvas cloth, stitched the edges with eyelets and sold the finished product as tarpaulins. v. State of Tamil Nadu the question that arose for consideration was as to whether the processed canvas cloth, out of which tarpaulin was made, is "textile" falling under item No. 4 of the Third Schedule to the TNGST Act. (i) The assessee cut processed canvas cloth, stitched the edges with eyelets and sold the finished product as tarpaulins. On the question, whether tarpaulins would fall within the expression "textiles" and would be exempt from payment of sales tax under section8 of the TNGST Act, 1959 read with item 4 of Schedule III, a Division Bench of this Court held that processed waterproof cloth, out of which tarpaulin is generally made will not fall within item 4 of Schedule III to the TNGST Act. It was held further that even assuming that processed canvas cloth out of which tarpaulins is made is textile, as the processed canvas cloth was not sold as such but the tarpaulin was sold as a separate finished product, it could not be treated as "textile" falling under item 4 of Schedule III to the TNGST Act.(c) In Pokardas & Brothers v. State of Gujarat the question that arose for consideration was whether tarpaulin was a cotton fabric, as defined in item 19 of the First Schedule to the CESA at the relevant time. The Gujarat High Court, after elaborately considering all aspects of the matter, held that tarpaulin came within the enlarged definition of "cotton fabrics". (d) In Satyavijay Commercial Company v. Commissioner of Sales Tax a similar, as the one posed for consideration in Pokardas & Brothers case was also posed for consideration, that is to say, whether tarpaulin manufactured out of cotton fabrics and sold fell under entry No. 15 of Schedule "A" to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 stating that tarpaulin manufactured out of cotton fabrics and sold fall under entry No. 15 of Schedule A to the said Bombay Act and would, therefore, be exempt from tax. (e) In Bharat Textiles and Proofing Industries v. State of Karnataka what their Lordships of the Karnataka High Court said on a similar issue or question is relevant and it reads as under : "The Central Legislature while passing the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, decided that the term 'cotton fabrics' [declared goods under section 14(iia)] should have the same meaning as assigned to it at item 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, having regard to the purpose and object underlying the impost of excise duty as well as sales tax on such an important commodity like cotton fabrics. The Legislature also prescribed a policy and provided a definition which should be in consonance with the definition of 'cotton fabrics' as understood in the Central Excises and Salt Act since any inconsistency or repugnancy might have far-reaching consequences in inter-State trade or commerce. Therefore, the meaning of the word 'cotton textiles' at entry 8A of the Fifth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, has to be determined in accordance with the definition of the word 'cotton fabrics' at item 19 of the Central Excise Tariff as amended by Act 6 of 1980. This definition covers within its scope tarpaulins and PVC rexine cloths, which are therefore exempt from levy of sales tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act." (f) In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Binny Ltd. a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court came to consider a similar issue and what the division Bench said is reflected as below : "An examination of the meaning given to 'cotton fabrics' in entry 19 of the Central Excises and Salt Act reveals that it is an inclusive definition and takes in not only all varieties of fabrics manufactured either wholly or partly from cotton but also includes fabrics impregnated or coated or laminated with preparations of cellulose derivatives or of other artificial plastic materials. The word 'includes' is used while defining 'cotton fabrics' in order to enlarge the meaning of the said expression. In view of the extended meaning, the expression 'cotton fabrics' as understood in common parlance will not be conclusive. Cotton canvas or tarpaulins are waterproof cloth and are fabric falling within the description of 'fabrics impregnated, coated or laminated with preparations of cellulose derivatives or of other artificial plastic materials'. In view of the extended meaning, the expression 'cotton fabrics' as understood in common parlance will not be conclusive. Cotton canvas or tarpaulins are waterproof cloth and are fabric falling within the description of 'fabrics impregnated, coated or laminated with preparations of cellulose derivatives or of other artificial plastic materials'. They are cotton fabrics as defused in entry 19 of the Central Excises and Salt Act at the relevant time and fall within entry 5 of the Fourth Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The use of cotton canvas as tarpaulins or its size cannot alter its character. The stitching of the edges and making of eyelets do not make any difference, and its essential character remains the same and no material change is effected. Tarpaulins as a finished product fall under entry 5 of the Fourth Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957." (g) In Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana the question that fell for consideration before the apex Court was as to whether "dryer felts" made out of cotton or woollen yarn by the process of weaving and commonly used as absorbents of moisture in paper manufacturing units is exempt from sales tax under item 30 of Schedule "B" of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (Act No. 46 of 1948), under the classification of "textiles".(i) The Supreme Court answered the question so posed in the following terms : "(a) Dryer felts made out of cotton or woollen yarn by the process of weaving according to the warp and woof pattern and commonly used as absorbents of moisture in the process of manufacture in paper manufacturing units fall within the ordinary and common parlance meaning of the word 'textiles' in item 30 of Schedule 'B' to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and are exempt from tax. (b) The word 'textiles' in item 30 of Schedule 'B' must be interpreted according to its popular sense, meaning that sense which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it. That word has only one meaning, namely, a woven fabric, and that is the meaning which it bears in ordinary parlance. (b) The word 'textiles' in item 30 of Schedule 'B' must be interpreted according to its popular sense, meaning that sense which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it. That word has only one meaning, namely, a woven fabric, and that is the meaning which it bears in ordinary parlance. (c) When yarn, whether cotton, silk, woollen, rayon, nylon or of any other description or made out of any other material is woven into a fabric, what conies into being is a 'textile' and it is known as such. The method of weaving adopted may be the warp and woof pattern, as is generally the case in most of the textiles, or it may be any other process or technique. What is necessary is no more than weaving of yarn and weaving would mean binding or putting together by some process so as to form a fabric. Moreover a textile need not be of any particular size, strength or weight. It may be bleached or dyed. The use to which it may be put is also immaterial and does not bear on its character as a textile. It can be used even for industrial purposes. (d) The concept of 'textiles' is not a static concept. It has, having regard to newly developing materials, methods, techniques and processes, a continually expanding content and new kinds of fabric may be invented which may legitimately, without doing any violence to the language, be regarded as 'textiles'." (ii) The Supreme Court further said that the use to which it may be put is also immaterial and does not bear in its character as a textile. It may be used for making wearing apparel, or it may be used as a covering or bedsheet or it may be used as tapestry or upholstery or as duster for cleaning or as towel for drying the body. A textile may have diverse uses and it is not the use which determines its character as textile. It is, therefore, no argument against the assessee that "dryer felts" are used only as absorbents of moisture in the process of manufacture in a paper manufacturing unit. That cannot militate against "dryer felts" falling within the category of "textiles", if otherwise they satisfy the description of "textiles". It is, therefore, no argument against the assessee that "dryer felts" are used only as absorbents of moisture in the process of manufacture in a paper manufacturing unit. That cannot militate against "dryer felts" falling within the category of "textiles", if otherwise they satisfy the description of "textiles". (h) In Binny Ltd. v. Collector (Tribunal), the question that arose for consideration before the Central Excises and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (for short "the CEGAT) was as to whether the finished product, namely, 'tarpaulin", can, ever, be said to fall under the expanded definition of "cotton fabric" under item 19 of the Central Excise Tariff. (a)(i) The Tribunal, after elaborate consideration, ultimately held that the main product, namely, finished tarpaulin was classifiable as "cotton fabric" falling under item No. 19 of the Central Excise Tariff. (ii) The Revenue, aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, preferred Civil appeal No. 3538 of 1987 on the file of the Supreme Court of India in its civil appellate jurisdiction and their Lordships of the Supreme Court passed a crisp order on 10th April, 1995 as below : "In the facts and circumstances of the case, we decline to admit the appeal." 14. Reference to various decisions as above would fall under two Classifications :(i) Decisions rendered, taking into account the original entry No. 4 in the Third Schedule of the TNGST Act; and (ii) The decisions rendered, taking into account the substituted entry No. 4 is per Act No. 37 of 1974. 15. Under original entry No. 4, all varieties of textiles, as had been stated herein, were exempt from tax and there was no reference to the definition under any other enactment as relatable to "textiles"; whereas, under the substituted entry No. 4, "cotton fabrics", " woollen fabrics"and" rayon"or" artificial silk fabrics" as defined in items 19, 21 and 22 respectively of the First Schedule to CESA were included, that is to say, the substituted entry by itself does not contain any parameters to determine the question as to what sort of fabrics would be included in "cotton", " woollen"," rayon"or" artificial silk fabrics" and it would say that those items of cotton fabrics, woollen fabrics, rayon or artificial silk Fabrics, are defined in the items of the First Schedule to the CESA, as stated above. That means, whatever cotton fabrics, woollen fabrics and rayon or artificial silk fabrics, falling under any of the entries, as referred to in the First Schedule to CESA, will be exempted from tax under the Third Schedule to the TNGST Act. Therefore, it goes without saying that whenever the aforesaid items referred to in the First Schedule to CESA were amended, then the amendment so made will have a telling effect on the said substituted entry No. 4. The said substituted entry as per Act 37 of 1974 is retrospective, that is to say, as and when the said Act came into force. 16. The two decisions of this Court in East India Rubber Works and Jeewajee & Co. being rendered under the original entry No. 4 - "textiles" cannot at all be stated to have any application in considering the question posed for consideration in the instant cases, namely, whether the finished product "tarpaulin" is "cotton fabric" under substituted entry No. 4 of the Third Schedule, which is incorporated in its fold "cotton fabrics", " woollen fabrics"and" rayon"or" artificial silk fabrics", as defined in items 19, 21 and 22 respectively of the First Schedule to the CESA. 17. The decision in Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. though fell into the category of a decision under the original entry No. 4 of the Third Schedule to the TNGST Act, yet is helpful in solving the tangle posed in the instant cases. The reason is this : (a) No doubt, the Supreme Court said that it is not the use, which determines the character of the cloths as "textiles", that is to say, the user, theory is irrelevant in determining the question. While stating so, the Supreme Court categorically said that an item of cloth can fall under the classification "textile", if it otherwise satisfies the description of "textile". 18. The decisions, namely, in Pokardas & Brothers, Satyavijay Commercial Company, Bharat Textile and Proofing Industries, Binny Limited (assessee's own case) and Binny Ltd. (Tribunal) - (assessee's own case) as earlier stated, express the view that the finished product "tarpaulin" would fall within item No. 19 of the First Schedule to the CESA. This apart, as already indicated, the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3538 of 1987 declined to admit the appeal taken by the Revenue as against the decision of CEGAT in Binny Ltd. (Tribunal). This apart, as already indicated, the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3538 of 1987 declined to admit the appeal taken by the Revenue as against the decision of CEGAT in Binny Ltd. (Tribunal). (a) In all these decisions, what was taken into account was whether the main goods, namely, finished product "tarpaulin" would fall under item No. 19 of the First Schedule to the CESA. On the basis of such analysis, the finished product "tarpaulin" was found to be "cotton fabrics", falling under item of substituted entry No. 4 of the Third Schedule to TNGST Act. We have to recapitulate here that the scope of the substituted entry No. 4 in the Third Schedule to TNGST Act must have to correspond to the scope of the entry No. 19 of the First Schedule to the CESA.(b) In the assessee's own case, as already stated, namely, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Binny Limited the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the finished product "tarpaulin" made by the assessee and sold would fall under entry No. 5 of the Fourth Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, which is in pari materia to the substituted entry No. 4 of the Third Schedule to TNGST Act and therefore exempt from tax. Similarly, in the assessees own case in Binny Ltd. v. Collector (Tribunal), the CEGAT also found that the finished product "tarpaulin" made and sold in the market by the assessee-company would attract excise duty under item No. 19 of the First Schedule to the CESA. For the sake of emphasis, we must also state that this sort of a decision, the apex Court did not at all interfere when the Revenue approached for admission of their appeal. (c) The fact that the Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court was declined to be admitted may be a ground for the Revenue to urge that such a decision may not at all be construed, in the eye of law, as binding under article 141 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as such a decision cannot at all be stated to have been rendered, giving a rationale or reasoning for the decision. But, nonetheless, in the absence of any decision of the apex Court on the point in issue, no one can say that the decision so rendered cannot at all be stated to be having any persuasive force. But, nonetheless, in the absence of any decision of the apex Court on the point in issue, no one can say that the decision so rendered cannot at all be stated to be having any persuasive force. It is also paradoxical for the assessee-company to pay excise duty on the finished product "tarpaulin" sold under entry No. 19 of the First Schedule to CESA and at the same time, not in a position to claim exemption under the substituted entry No. 4 of the Third Schedule to the TNGST Act. Once the item of the goods "cotton fabrics" corresponds to the scope of the entry in item No. 19 of the First Schedule to the CESA, it goes without saying that the finished product, namely, "tarpaulin" must have to fall within the substituted entry No. 4 of the Third Schedule to the TNGST Act and consequently, the tarpaulin is liable to be exempted from tax, pursuant to the salient provisions under section8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act No. 74 of 1956 - for short, "the CST Act").(d) Further, we have to recapitulate here the Statement of Objects and Reasons while enacting Tamil Nadu Act No. 37 of 1974, which reflects thus : "............. in view of the general agreement that in respect of articles on which additional excise duty has been levied by the Central Government, the States should not levy sales tax, as a part of the proceeds of the additional excise duty have to be shared by the States. It has, therefore, been considered necessary that the definition of the commodity as found in entry 4 in the Third Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 19. As already stated, "tarpaulin", a " finished product" sold by the assessee attracted excise and additional excise duty. This item also figures as entry No. 19 of the First Schedule to the CESA. Such being the case, it goes without saying that "tarpaulin" must have to be construed as "cotton fabrics" under the substituted entry No. 4 of the TNGST Act liable to be exempted, pursuant to the salient provisions adumbrated under section8 of the CST Act. This item also figures as entry No. 19 of the First Schedule to the CESA. Such being the case, it goes without saying that "tarpaulin" must have to be construed as "cotton fabrics" under the substituted entry No. 4 of the TNGST Act liable to be exempted, pursuant to the salient provisions adumbrated under section8 of the CST Act. If the "finished product tarpaulin" is allowed to be taxed under the CST Act, the purpose for which the Tamil Nadu Act No. 37 of 1974 had been enacted would be defeated and the assessee would suffer detriment twice, in the sense of not only paying duty under the CESA, but also paying tax under the CST Act. 20. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the finished product "tarpaulin" sold by the assessee during the relevant years must have to be construed as "cotton fabrics", failing under the substituted entry No. 4 of the Third Schedule to the TNGST Act and liable to be exempted from tax, pursuant to the provisions contained in section8 of the CST Act. 21. In fine, all these revisions are dismissed. No costs.