ORDER R. P. SETHI, C.J. - The petitioners, who are admittedly engaged in the business of waste paper purchased locally, were subjected to entry tax vide annexure A. It is not in dispute that the waste paper collected and purchased by the petitioner was sold to the industrial units for the purpose of manufacture of paper. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority, the petitioner filed appeals before the appellate authority-the Additional Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The appeals filed by the petitioner were dismissed with the result, they preferred further appeals before the Appellate Tribunal who, aide its order dated January 31, 1997, held that the petitioner herein had rightly been subjected to entry tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979, and the Rules framed thereunder. The judgments of both the appellate authorities have been assailed in these revision petitions. 2. The petitioner has claimed the exemption from payment of entry tax under entry 16-B incorporated in the Schedule vide Act No. 41 of 1986. The aforesaid entry along with its explanation is reproduced herein : "All raw materials, component parts and inputs, which are used in the manufacture of an intermediate or finished product, - (i) when brought into local areas by an industrial unit; or (ii) when brought into local areas by any dealer who, after having so brought, sells or supplies the same to an industrial unit located either within the same local area or outside it. Explanation I. - The words 'industrial unit' mean a manufacturing unit which falls within the definition of a 'factory' under the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act No. 63 of 1948), but excludes, - (i) handicrafts manufacturing units, (ii) handloom weaving units and (iii) any other group or class of industries which may with reference to their nature, competitiveness, employment potential or such other factors, be notified by the State Government. Explanation II. - The words 'raw materials, component parts and inputs' do not include agricultural produce, horticultural produce, timber or wood of any species, silk cocoons, raw, thrown or twisted silk, tobacco (whether raw or cured), cement, paper, electrical goods or such other inputs as may be notified by the State Government for purposes of exemption from tax under item 16-B from time to time, but include aluminium ingots and ores of all kinds." 3. The Tribunal dismissed the petitions on the ground that the exemption relied upon by the petitioner in terms of Explanation II to entry 16-B was not available to them as, vide the aforesaid explanation, the exemption granted was to the commodity - "paper" and not "waste paper". Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the commodity - "paper" as mentioned in Explanation If will include all sorts of papers including "waste paper" provided such paper is shown to have been used as a raw material within the meaning of entry 16-B of the Schedule to the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue has, however, submitted that, paper for the purpose of Explanation 11 would be such paper as is commonly understood and in that context, it would not include waste paper. The fact that the waste paper, the subject-matter of controversy, has been used as raw material is not in dispute. The argument that the waste paper and paper are two distinct commodities for the purpose of Explanation 11 to entry 16-B of the Schedule is more theoretical than practical. Paper in its ordinary meaning would include all sorts of paper unless specifically excluded or classified by the Legislature itself. The important aspect for the purpose of tax would be the user of the paper and not the article or commodity-paper. It is acknowledged position of law that the Legislature does not use redundant words and whatever words are used are to be given such meaning which achieve the purpose of the enactment furthering its cause and hyper technical approach cannot be adopted to frustrate the meanings intended to be assigned by the Legislature. If the Legislature had intended to make a distinction between the waste paper and the paper or any other paper, it would have been definitely specified and reflected its intention either in the entry or the explanation attached to it. The courts of law only decode the law and do not code the law. While interpreting the provisions of law, the courts are required to keep in mind a practical approach instead of technical approach. The purpose of the enactment and the object sought to be achieved by it is required to be kept in mind. The courts of law only decode the law and do not code the law. While interpreting the provisions of law, the courts are required to keep in mind a practical approach instead of technical approach. The purpose of the enactment and the object sought to be achieved by it is required to be kept in mind. We have not been in a position to see the object of assigning distinction between the waste paper and paper in the context of the object sought to be achieved by the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act as amended by Act No. 41 of 1986. We are, therefore, of the opinion that both the appellate authorities were not justified in dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner. There was no justification for the assessing authority to subject the petitioner to assessment of tax on the paper sold by them to the industrial units for the purpose of manufacture of paper in its finished and new form. Both the revision petitions are allowed and the impugned orders of the assessing authority and those of the appellate authorities are set aside. Petitions allowed.