M. C. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) THESE two revision petitions have been preferred by the dealer against the order dated July 4, 1997 and May 13, 1998 on the dealers appeals for assessment years 1989-90 and 1988-89, respectively. ( 2 ) I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri S. D. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. ( 3 ) THE revisionist is a manufacturer of camphor and isobornyl powder, turpentine oil, camphor oil and other things and the dispute in these revision petitions is about the nature of- (i) Capinone (ii) Sandalica (iii) Isobornyl acetate (iv) Terpineol (v) Astrolide (vi) Thymol according to the Revenue these were taxable as scents and perfumes under entry 60 of a notification dated September 7, 1981. The contention of the dealer-revisionist on the other hand was that they are chemicals. The rate of tax on these two categories of goods is 12 per cent and 8 per cent respectively. ( 4 ) ENTRY No. 60 is in respect of "scents and perfumes, excluding agarbattis and dhoop battis". The Tribunal mentioned the characteristic of these things as under : "1. Capinone : ??? "2. Sandalica : ??? "3. Isobornyl acetate : ??? "4. Terpineol (PG) : ??? "5. Astrolide : ??? "6. Thymol : ( 5 ) THE aforesaid characteristic of the commodities, as mentioned in the Tribunals order, are not disputed and the question is whether the Tribunal has rightly placed them in the category of scents and perfumes. Entry No. 21 in the aforesaid notification deals with "chemicals of all kinds including fuel gases" and entry No. 5 deals with "all kinds of cosmetics and toilet preparations for beautification or care of the face, skin, hair, nails, eyes or brows, but not including soaps, safety razor blades, hair combs, tooth pastes, tooth powders and other dentifrices, tooth brushes and Kum him". In A. Boake Roberts and Co. (India) Ltd. now Bush boake Allen (India) Ltd. v. Board of Revenue [1978] 42 STC 270, the honourable Madras High court had to consider a similar question as to whether synthetic essential oils mentioned as musk and jasmine essences were taxable as scents and perfumes under the Madras General Sales Tax act. In A. Boake Roberts and Co. (India) Ltd. now Bush boake Allen (India) Ltd. v. Board of Revenue [1978] 42 STC 270, the honourable Madras High court had to consider a similar question as to whether synthetic essential oils mentioned as musk and jasmine essences were taxable as scents and perfumes under the Madras General Sales Tax act. The honourable Madras High Court held that the essential oils which emanated different fragrance, most of which were of a pungent nature were not utilised for purpose of beautifying the body by direct application to the body but were utilised for the purpose of making toilet requisites such as soaps, powders or cosmetics and therefore were not scents and perfumes. In commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. v, S. N. . Brothers [1973] 31 STC 302 (SC), the question was whether syrup essences used for adding flavour to items of food could be taxed under the category "scents and perfumes". It was held that the classification of goods has to be construed in the sense in which they are popularly understood by those who deal in them and who purchase and use them and that syrup essences were edible goods and therefore, could not fall under the category scents and perfumes. In Mettur Sandalwood Oil Co. v. State of Madras [1965] 16 STC 9 the honourable Madras High Court had to deal with the question whether sandalwood oil was taxable as a perfume or as vegetable oil. The court observed that a perfume must be one which is ready for use because of its odoriferous and high volatile character, after the admixture of proper solvents, fixative and odoriferous substances. Sandalwood oil sold as a base for preparing perfumes and other articles is not therefore a perfume or scent. The court also observed that sandalwood oil as sold in the market does not vaporise readily to serve the purpose of a common perfume. It has to be rubbed hard on the hand or some other part of the body so that the temperature can be raised by friction and better vaporisation takes place. Therefore, it has to be used in mixture with other substances like oil or alcohol or soap so that the resultant product can emit the peculiar perfume characteristic of sandal. ( 6 ) IN G. Radhakrishna Murthi and Co. Therefore, it has to be used in mixture with other substances like oil or alcohol or soap so that the resultant product can emit the peculiar perfume characteristic of sandal. ( 6 ) IN G. Radhakrishna Murthi and Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1999] 113 STC 161 (SC) ; 1998 UPTC 906 the question was whether agarbattis could be taxed as perfumes. The honourable Supreme Court answered the question in the negative. In that case scents and perfumes were placed in entry 36 along with cosmetics and toilet preparations, face powder and talcum powder, etc. , and it was held that in this context agarbattis cannot be treated as scents and perfumes. The honourable Supreme Court has referred to the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Gordhandas Tokersey [1983] 52 STC 381 (Bom) in which it was held that sandalwood oil and sandalwood could not be treated as perfumes which refers to such preparations as are commonly known in the market for use on the body as perfume. ( 7 ) A perusal of the various judgments, referred to above, would show that anything that has a pleasant smell cannot be categorised as "scents and perfumes". Only those things that are commonly used as scents and perfumes on the body or clothes or in the rooms, etc. , can be put in the category of scents and perfumes. The Tribunals order does not mention that any of the aforesaid goods is used as scents and perfumes by people. The uses to which these things are stated to be put are only as blending materials for soaps, detergents, powder, creams, agarbattis, deodorants, sprays, etc. None of them is mentioned to be in direct use as a scent or perfume. Therefore, in spite of the fact that the aforesaid articles possess smells of various types, they were not used directly as scents and perfumes and were used only as a blending material for the preparation of various things, some of which may be categorised as scents and perfumes, The aforesaid items were, therefore, taxable only as chemicals and the Tribunal was wrong in upholding their taxability as scents and perfumes. ( 8 ) THESE revision petitions are, therefore, allowed and the Tribunal is directed to pass a fresh orders on the dealers appeals in accordance with this judgment.