Honble KOTHARI, J.–The interesting question of law arises in these cases is whether ``Parachute 100% coconut oil sold by the assessee during the relevant period would be taxable @ 4% under entry ``all kinds of edible oil including edible coconut oil whether refined or filtered or whether it would be taxable @ 12% under entry relating to ``perfumery which includes, ``all types of hair oils including refined or filtered coconut oil. This controversy arose on account of notification dated 15.3.1996 (F. 4(69) FD/Tax Divn./95-32 dated 15.3.1996, S.O. 267 (S. No. 1037) of J.K. Jains book part II). The relevant two competing entries for consideration of this court are reproduced below for ready reference: ``50. All kinds of edible oils including edible cocount oil whether refined or filtered. 72. Perfumery (excluding agarbattis, dhoop and loban), cosmetics, shampoos, tooth pastes and tooth powders (manjan), comb, brushes, all types of hair oils including refined or filtered coconut oil, shaving articles but excluding safety razors and blades: ...12% (2). After hearing the arguments at length of learned counsel at bar, it appears that this controversy for the year 1995-96 in question is only for a period of 15 days because said notification came w.e.f. 15.3.1996 and the earlier notification for assessment year which governed the taxability is notification dated 27.3.1995 (S.No. 968). Here the relevant comparative entries read like this: 51. All kinds of Edible Oils including edible coconut oil whether refined or filtered. 6% 74. Perfumery (excluding agarbattis, dhoop and loban), cosmetics, shampoos, tooth pastes and tooth powders (Manjan), Combs, Brushes, all types of Hair oils, shaving articles but excluding safety razors and blades. 12% (3). The difference which the notification dated 15.3.1996 made with regard to this commodity was the inclusion of words ``including refined or filtered coconut oil with the words ``all types of hair oils in entry 72 which words were not available in previous entry 74 which mentions only the words ``all types of hair oils having taxability of 12%; whereas entry 51 of the previous notification dated 27.3.1995 and entry 50 of the notification dt. 15.3.1996 continued to remain identical. (4). Mr. R.B. Mathur, learned Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for petitioner-revenue contended that the amendment in notification dt. 15.3.1996 continued to remain identical. (4). Mr. R.B. Mathur, learned Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for petitioner-revenue contended that the amendment in notification dt. 15.3.1996 by including of words including refined or filtered coconut oil in entry 72 cannot be said to be redundant by the legislature and, therefore, with the inclusion of these words in entry 72, the product in question sold by the assessee during the relevant year namely ``Parachute 100% pure coconut oil should be held to be the taxable @ 12% and not @4% as contended by learned counsel appearing for the assessee and as taxed by the assessee himself @4% during the said period. (5). Learned counsel appearing for petitioner-revenue further submitted that not only the said cocount oil which is sold in a much costlier range than the normal edible oil but is also sold in a small packings like that of 50 ml, 100 ml, 200 ml or even in 500 ml indicates that said oil is pre-dominantly used by a common man as hair oil and not as edible oil used for cooking purpose, and therefore, mere description on the packing of said product as 100% pure edible oil by the assessee is not sufficient to hold applying the common parlance test, which is the well settled principle of interpretation in sales tax laws, that such product should be taxed @ 4% only. (6). These contentions are vehemently opposed by Mr. T.C. Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondent-assessee. He firstly contends that though the burden of proof lies upon the revenue i.e. Assessing Authority to show that product in question is pre- dominantly used as hair oil and not as edible oil and the Assessing Authority has not brought any material on record to discharge such burden of proof. As against this, assessee produced over-whelming evidence before the Assessing Authority to establish that the product in question is an edible oil and is used as such and, therefore, same cannot be taxed @ 12% under entry 72 despite amendment by the notification dated 15.3.1996. Elaborating his argument, Mr. As against this, assessee produced over-whelming evidence before the Assessing Authority to establish that the product in question is an edible oil and is used as such and, therefore, same cannot be taxed @ 12% under entry 72 despite amendment by the notification dated 15.3.1996. Elaborating his argument, Mr. Jain, counsel appearing for assessee submitted that mere packing of the goods in smaller packings cannot be an indicative factor of the said edible oil to be taken as hair oil because not only such smaller packings are permitted as per Third Schedule to ``The Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1957 framed under R. 5 of the Essential Commodities Act which vide entry 10 of the said Schedule clearly specifies that edible oil, Vanaspati ghee, butter oil can be packed in 50g, 100g, 200g, 500g, 1 kg, 2 kg, 3kg, 5 kg and thereafter in multiples of 5 kg. He further submits that product in question sold by assessee who has its own manufacturing facility in the State of Maharashtra and in Rajasthan they are registered as selling dealers, the packings sold by assessee range from 50 ml to 1 lt. and that is for the convenience of the consumers. He further submits that though the product in question is sold by assessee that clearly describes that it is 100% purely edible oil, merely because some consumers or purchasers may use it as hair oil at home, is not the criteria or determining factor to hold it to be hair oil taxable @12% specially when the said product can equally fall in entry 50 which continued to contain words ``including Edible coconut oil whether refined or filtered in the notification dated 15.3.1996. He therefore, contended that where the words ``refined or filtered coconut oil are including in both the competing entries, even if it is held that two views are possible, as per well settled principles of interpretation in taxing statutes, benefit should go to the assessee and commodity in question should be held to be taxable @ 4%. (7). Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee relies upon various case laws. In the first instance, he submits that this Court in Asstt. (7). Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee relies upon various case laws. In the first instance, he submits that this Court in Asstt. Commissioner vs. Rameshwar Lal Om Prakash (2001 STN 121 (Raj.) by a very short but well reasoned order held that refined coconut oil sold in small packings would continue to be edible oil taxable @ 6% under earlier notification dated 27.3.95, though the said judgment refers to the notification dated 153.1996 and, therefore, this issue according to him stands concluded. (8). Learned counsel than has drawn attention of this court to the decision of Honble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Sharma Chemical Works (2003) 132 STC 251 (SC) wherein the Honble Apex Court while holding that ``Banphool Oil was correctly classifiable as an Ayurvedic Medicament under tariff item 3003.30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and not as `Perfumery oil under tariff item 3305.10 of the said Act. (9). Learned counsel for respondent-assessee supports his submission with the said judgment by drawing attention of this Court towards para 13 and 14 in which Honble Apex Court has observed that merely because a product was available across the counter it did not mean that it is not a medicament. Various products like Vicks, Strepsils, Mediker are available across the counters and even available in grocers shops and no prescription by doctor is needed to purchase such things, but still they continued to be medicaments. It was held in para 14 of the said judgment that onus or burden to show that a product falls within a particular tariff item is always on the Revenue. The Honble Apex Court also held that merely because the percentage of medicament in a product is less, does not ipso facto mean that the product is not a medicament because generally the percentage or dosage of the medicament will be such as can be absorbed by the human body. Therefore, the Honble Apex Court held that burden of proving that Banphool oil is understood by the customers as an hair oil was on the Revenue. This burden is not discharged as no such proof is adduced and on the contrary the court found that the oil can be used for treatment of headache, eye problem, night blindness, reeling head, weak memory, hysteria, amnesia, blood pressure, insomnia, etc. This burden is not discharged as no such proof is adduced and on the contrary the court found that the oil can be used for treatment of headache, eye problem, night blindness, reeling head, weak memory, hysteria, amnesia, blood pressure, insomnia, etc. and therefore, the said commodity was held to be taxable as Ayurvedic medicament. (10). Mr. Jain further relies upon the Judgment of this court in State of Rajasthan vs. Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd. (1981) 48 SCT 66 (Raj.) wherein the court held that the items which are the subject matter of the dispute before us are mainly and essentially used for the purpose of generation, transmission or distribution of electric power, and simply because by any stretch of argument they are capable of being used to any other purpose cannot affect the main classification to which they belong. (11). Learned counsel further relies upon M/s. Navbharat Industries vs. Addl. Commissioner, CT Jaipur (1991) 10 RTJS 14) whereby this Court observed that how consumer uses the goods is not relevant to decide the taxability under sales tax law. Learned counsel then relies upon Annapurna Carbon Industries Co. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1976) 37 STC 378 (SC) wherein Honble Apex Court held that the main use of the arc carbons under consideration was duly proved to be that of production of powerful light used in projectors in Cinemas. The fact that they can also be used for searchlights, signalling, stage lighting, or where powerful lighting for photography or other purposes may be required, could not detract from the classification to which the carbon arcs belong. (12). The attention of this Court was also drawn towards the judgment of Honble Apex Court in Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. (12). The attention of this Court was also drawn towards the judgment of Honble Apex Court in Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. (1988) 71 STC 173 (SC) wherein the Honble Apex Court held that while dealing with the case of coconut oil under Import Policy for the year when the licenses were issued i.e. 1980-81, that `coconut oil without anything more would cover both the edible and non-edible or industrial varieties and the court observed that whatever may have been the reason for specifying ``edible and non-edible coconut oil in the Import Policy for 1981-82, there was no warrant for the assumption that the Import Policy of 1980-81 covered only edible coconut oil when it mentioned only ``coconut oil; therefore, coconut oil of industrial variety could not be imported under the licenses held by the appellant-company. (13). Be that as it may, there is no dispute on fairly settled principles of interpretation in taxing statutes that while interpreting the entries, common parlance test is the acid test for determining under which entry a particular commodity is liable to be taxed. It is equally well settled that burden of proof lies upon the Revenue to establish a particular commodity to fall under a particular entry in order to impose additional or higher tax and it is only when such burden is properly discharged, then such onus can be said to have been shifted on the assessee to dispense with such material or evidence brought on record by the Revenue. It is also not in dispute that where the bonafide doubt exists as to interpretation between two competing entries, the benefit would tilt towards the assessee and not in favour of revenue for applying the particular rate of tax to the commodity in question. (14). This is not in dispute in the present case that ``Parachute 100% pure coconut oil is sold with the description Edible oil on the packing bottles by the assessee. The mere fact that it could also be used as hair oil by some consumers which possibility cannot be ruled out in the present case, is not sufficient, in the considered opinion of this Court to exclude it from the category of edible oil. (15). The mere fact that it could also be used as hair oil by some consumers which possibility cannot be ruled out in the present case, is not sufficient, in the considered opinion of this Court to exclude it from the category of edible oil. (15). There is also considerable force in the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for assessee that so long as entry 50 continues to include the words ``including edible coconut oil whether refined or filtered which is the description which covered the product in question sold by assessee under entry ``all kinds of edible oil namely entry 50, mere inclusion of these words in entry 72 also with the words ``all types of hair oil will not be enough to take out this product from the ambit and scope of entry 50 and let it fall in entry 72 to the exclusion of entry 50 under notification dated 15.3.96. Such inclusion by way of amendment in the notification dated 15.3.1996 has at best or worst, created some confusion about the taxability of refined and filtered cocount oil which could be either used as hair oil or edible oil by the consumers. The confusion or doubt if at all which could be said to have arisen by this amendment of entry 72 would go to the benefit of assessee rather than the revenue in the present case and, therefore, product should still be held to be 4% of category under entry 50 in said notification. (16). This is more so when the Revenue in the present case has not adduced any evidence to establish that the said product is exclusively or even pre-dominantly used as hair oil by consumers or purchasers of these products. (16). This is more so when the Revenue in the present case has not adduced any evidence to establish that the said product is exclusively or even pre-dominantly used as hair oil by consumers or purchasers of these products. As against this evidence has been produced by the assessee before the Assessing Authority including the Lab Reports of Government Laboratories holding the said products to be conforming to PFA specifications of edible oil, excise classification, the certificate issued by Municipal Corporation of Mumbai and the advertising material produced by assessee and the entries in the Registration certificates issued in favour of the assessee by the sales tax department which covers the entry, ``all kinds of edible oil, coconut oil, perfumerly oil in the said R.C. Learned counsel for the assessee has made it clear that they are also manufacturer of perfumery hair oils and they are paying 12% sales tax on such products sold by assessee and there is no dispute about that from the side of Revenue and the dispute involved in the present only pertains to product sold as 100% pure edible coconut oil. (17). Learned counsel for assessee is also right in submitting that merely because the said product is packed in smaller packings, the same being not only permissible under law, but being done for convenience of consumers to cater to different sections of consumers at different economic levels, it would not make the `edible coconut oil to be `coconut hair oil. (18). He also pointed out that provisional assessment order passed after the said notification came towards the end of year on 15.3.96, the assessing authority himself while passing the final assessment order has held this very product to be taxable @ 4% under entry 50 of the said notification and, therefore, he raised an argument that Revenue cannot now contend that said product would be taxable @ 12% under entry 72. This Court however feels that this submission is not of much significance when the court, examining the case on merits itself, comes to the conclusion that the said product sold by the assessee during the year in question after the amendment by notification dated 15.3.1996, would still to be taxable under entry 50 as edible coconut oil @ 4%. (19). This Court however feels that this submission is not of much significance when the court, examining the case on merits itself, comes to the conclusion that the said product sold by the assessee during the year in question after the amendment by notification dated 15.3.1996, would still to be taxable under entry 50 as edible coconut oil @ 4%. (19). Thus it is held that ``100% pure edible coconut oil sold by the assessee would be taxable under Entry No. 50 of notification dt. 15.3.1996 @ 4% only and not under Entry No. 72 @ 12% for the period in question. (20). In view of this conclusion arrived at by this Court, these revision petitions of Revenue are found to be devoid of merit and same are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.