JUDGMENT OM PRAKASH, C.J. – The short question for consideration in these tax revision cases (T. R. C., acronym) which, for the sake of convenience, are disposed of by a common judgment, is whether refill is covered by entry 135 of the First Schedule, appended to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, which is extracted below : "135. Pens, pencils and fountain pens." 2. The contention of the Government Pleader is that refill is only a part of a ball pen, which by itself cannot be regarded as a pen. This contention was Special leave petition to the State against this judgment was granted by the Supreme Court on 4th September, 1998 in S. L. P. (Civil) Nos. 14089-14090 of 1998 : See [1998] 111 STC (JOURNAL) 7. accepted by a Full Bench of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal vide impugned order dated March 20, 1997. The Tribunal found as follows : "(6) On a careful analysis of the fact we find that the entry 135 takes in its purview only pens, pencils and fountain pens. The entry is found to be specific, categoric and is rendered exhaustive and exclusive. Refill is only a part of a. ball pen which by itself cannot be regarded as a pen as pen is constituted by different parts aria its identity is retained, any one of its part, however pivotal it may be, when separated cannot be treated as that commodity as the parts loose the identity and use of the parent commodity. Hence refill is only a part of a ball pen and hence it cannot be called a pen. Moreover refill is not designed for writing and the same is designed only as pail of a pen. In common parlance and commercial parlance also pen and refill are entirely different commodities with distinct and independent identities ................ 3. From the above reproduced findings of the Appellate Tribunal, it is amply clear that the Tribunal concluded that refill is only part of a ball pen, because it was of the view that refill is not designed for writing and the same is designed only as a part. The question for consideration is whether the cover or the body of the refill can be regarded as a pen, whereas refill is the principal part of a ball pen, its cover or the body is merely an embellishment. The question for consideration is whether the cover or the body of the refill can be regarded as a pen, whereas refill is the principal part of a ball pen, its cover or the body is merely an embellishment. Cover or the body of a refill is designed in several ways to make the refill-which is the only writing device - more attractive. May be that a cover or the body of a refill may facilitate handling the refill, but in no case, can it be said that the body or the cover of the refill can be used as a writing device. The main component of the ball pen is not the body but the refill only. Without refill, writing is not possible. One can write with case only by a refill, but one cannot write at all by its cover. Therefore, it is wholly wrong to say that refill is merely a part of a ball pen, which by itself cannot be regarded as pen. The correct conclusion would be that body or the cover is made only to beautify or make the refill more attractive in appearance. It is the refill only, which makes the writing possible and which alone is the writing device. For these reasons, the view taken by the Full Bench of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal that "refill is not designed for writing" is wholly incorrect and unsustainable in law. The correct position is that refill is designed for writing and rest of the body is merely to make it more attractive. 4. A ball pen is made of two components, viz., the refill and the cover or the body into which the refill is put. As already pointed out, the cover of the refill cannot be used for writing, whereas the refill alone is used for writing. One can write with the refill only. The body of the refill is not an aid to writing for which the refill is used. But that can only facilitate handling of the refill or that can merely make the refill more attractive in appearance. 5. Refill being the only major component of the ball pen, we are of the view that the refill is not an ancillary of the ball pen but a major component of it and hence that can be regarded as a ball pen by itself. 6. 5. Refill being the only major component of the ball pen, we are of the view that the refill is not an ancillary of the ball pen but a major component of it and hence that can be regarded as a ball pen by itself. 6. In common parlance or in commercial sense also the body of the ball pen cannot be regarded as pen, but a refill which can be used for writing as such, can be treated as pen. What can write and which can be used for writing is ordinarily a pen, but the body of the ball pen which is not an aid to writing device but merely an embellishment, can in no case be treated as a pen. So from a layman point of view also, it is the refill and not the body which can be treated as pen. For these reasons, we accept the contention of the revision-petitioner. The revisions are, therefore, allowed. The impugned common order of the Full Bench of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is set aside. The refill will, therefore, be treated as a classified item falling under entry 135 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Order on C.M.P. No. 1570 of 1997 in T.R.C. No. 60 of 1997 dismissed. Petition allowed.