JUDGMENT RAJES KUMAR J. - The present revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated December 12, 1995 relating to assessment year 1988-89. The opposite party/dealer (hereinafter referred to as "dealer") was carrying on the business of nylon yarn. It had imported nylon yarn and after some chemical process sold the same to the shoemaker. It had claimed that by processing, the quality of yarn had only been increased, but nylon yarn remains the same and was used for sewing and knitting. It had also been explained that shoemakers normally use such yarns for sewing of shoes, though these yarn can be used for any other purposes also. The claim of the dealer was that it was yarn and liable to tax at two per cent under the entry of "all kinds of yarn" under Notification No. ST-2-5785/x - 10(1)-80-U.P. Act. 15/48 - Order-81 dated September 7, 1981. The assessing authority had accepted the claim of the dealer and taxed the turnover of the said nylon yarn at two per cent. The Deputy Commissioner (Executive), however, passed an order under section 10-B of the Act on June 13, 1995 and levied tax on the turnover of the said nylon yarn at 10 per cent treating it as an unclassified item. The Deputy Commissioner (Executive) held that the nylon yarn after processing became a special kind of yarn which was to be used in shoemaking and therefore, it was shoe material and since there was no entry of shoe material, therefore, it was liable to tax as an unclassified item. Against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Executive), the dealer filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its impugned order, allowed the appeal. The Tribunal held that by chemical process of imported nylon yarn, a special kind of thread had been manufactured which remained thread/yarn. The Tribunal held that by chemical processing, only strength had been provided to the yarn, but it remained yarn. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. Entry 55 of Notification No. ST-2-5785/X - 10(1)-80 - U.P. Act 15/48 - Order-81 dated September 7, 1981 reads as follows : "55. The Tribunal held that by chemical processing, only strength had been provided to the yarn, but it remained yarn. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. Entry 55 of Notification No. ST-2-5785/X - 10(1)-80 - U.P. Act 15/48 - Order-81 dated September 7, 1981 reads as follows : "55. Yarn of all kinds except those covered by any other notification." I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. No one has disputed that after the chemical process, nylon yarn remains yarn. The Deputy Commissioner (Executive) had also not disputed this position, therefore, after the treatment of chemical process, since it remains yarn, it is liable to tax under the entry of "all kinds of yarn" at two per cent. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. T.C. Traders reported in [1992] UPTC 1148, dispute was whether the untwisted synthetic yarn sold after twisting remains the same. This court held as follows : "No material has been placed before this court by the State to show that the twisted yarn was commercially a different commodity or that the twisted yarn did not serve the same purpose which the untwisted yarn did serve. There was no change of nomenclature of yarn and even if it was twisted it remained yarn alright. The State has also not suggested that the untwisted yarn cannot be used for any purpose for which, a twisted yarn can be put. No physical or chemical change is brought out by twisting the yarn, the yarn remains the yarn and in entry 55, yarns of all kinds have been included. There is no other notification which may go to show that the twisted yarn is a yarn different from untwisted yarn and is to be taxed separately. Both twisted and untwisted yarns are covered by entry 55. It cannot be the intention of the State that the same yarn should be subjected to tax twice, once when it is purchased in the form of untwisted yarn and secondly, when it is sold in the form of twisted yarn, while the commodity remains the same. This court does not find that the view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous or is not borne out from the provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. This court does not find that the view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous or is not borne out from the provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The view taken by the Tribunal is correct that the twisted yarn is the same product as was untwisted yarn and no tax is payable on the twisted yarn." In the case of Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Ballabh Das reported in [1970] 25 STC 372 (All), the question was whether the hand spun yarn which undergoes a process of twisting remains hand spun yarn. The division Bench of this court held the essential thing to be kept in mind in such cases is to see if as a result of any process, including a process of manufacture, the article concerned becomes commercially a different commodity. The treatment of hand spun yarn by way of colouring and twisting will not destroy its essential nature of being hand spun yarn. Therefore, hand spun yarn which underwent a process of twisting would still be exempt as hand spun yarn. In the case of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. O. Sadasivan reported in [1978] 42 STC 201 (Ker) the question for consideration before the division Bench of the Kerala High Court was whether despite the process of dyeing and colouring "cotton yarn" would remain "cotton yarn", the division Bench of the Kerala High Court said that despite the process of dyeing and colouring "cotton yarn" would remain "cotton yarn". In the case of Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Bareilly Rope Stores reported in [1988] 69 STC 241 (All); [1987] UPTC 1200, coir yarn has been held falling under the entry of "all kinds of yarn". In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Sarin Textile Mills [1975] 35 STC 634, the apex court adverting to the Oxford Dictionary and Webster's New World Dictionary held as follows : "Thus, a fibre in order to answer the description of 'yarn' in the ordinary commercial sense must have two characteristics. Firstly, it should be a spun strand. Secondly, such strand should be primarily meant for use in weaving, knitting or rope-making." For the aforesaid reasons, I uphold the order of Tribunal. In the result, revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.