H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) THE short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the white cement is a cement covered under Entry 9 of the First Schedule to the karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 ('the Act' for short) and Notification no. FD 11 CET 2002 dated 30-3-2002 and taxable under Section 3 (1) of the Act at the rate of 5% ( 2 ) IN order to answer this controversy, a reference to Entry 9 of the First schedule to the Act requires to be made. Entry 9 of the First Schedule to the Act is as Under: "cement, water and weather proofing components". ( 3 ) AT this stage, we intend to make it clear that there are several other entries under the First Schedule to the Act. Whenever the Legislature wanted to include all kinds of materials, it would specifically use the words,' all kinds' immediately after the commodity For instance, there is an entry at Sl. No. 10, which speaks of 'chemicals of all kinds'. Similarly, Entry at Sl. No. 2 speaks of 'arms of all kinds' including Guns, Rifles. ( 4 ) THE State Government has issued a notification under Section 3 (1) of the Act in No. FD 11 CET 2002 dated 30-3-2002, wherein it has specified different commodities and the rate of tax payable thereon. Entry 10 of the Notification speaks of cement alone and the rate of tax payable at 5%. ( 5 ) THE appellant before us is a dealer and a manufacturer of paints. For its manufacturing activity, it causes entry of white cement into the local area. ( 6 ) THE appellant had filed an application before the Advance Ruling Authority ('the Authority' for short) inter alia seeking the following clarification. ( 5 ) THE appellant before us is a dealer and a manufacturer of paints. For its manufacturing activity, it causes entry of white cement into the local area. ( 6 ) THE appellant had filed an application before the Advance Ruling Authority ('the Authority' for short) inter alia seeking the following clarification. It is as under:"when a dealer buys white cement as a basic raw material in the manufactures of paints, whether such white cement is exigible to tax under Entry 9 of the First schedule read with Entry 10 of the Notification in No. FD 11 CET 2002 dated 30-3-2002" ( 7 ) THE Authority, after considering the claim of the appellant, by its order dated 27-8-2004, has concluded that the white cement is covered under Entry 9 of the first Schedule to the Act and exigible to tax at the rate of 5% in, view of the notification issued by the State Government under Section 3 (1) of the Act dated 30-3-2002. Aggrieved by the opinion/ruling of the Authority, the appellant is before us. ( 8 ) SRI Narayan, Learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the white cement is not a cement and therefore, the Authority could not have come to the conclusion that the white cement is a cement and would fall under Entry 9 of the first Schedule to the Act and exigible to tax at the rate of 5% in view of the notification issued by the State Government dated 30-3-2002. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel places heavy reliance on the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Kajaria Exports Limited and Others Vs. Union of India and Others 1995 Supp (3) SCC 61 and also in the case of Associated cement Company Limited Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2006) 144 STC 95. ( 9 ) IN Kajaria Exports Limited and Others Vs. Union of India and Others (Supra) the Supreme Court while approving the observations made by the learned single Judge of Calcutta High Court in the case of Purbachal International [ (1985) 21 ELT 673 ] has stated as under:"9. The appellants have also drawn our attention to the composition of white cement which is different from ordinary Portland cement. Properties of white cement are also somewhat different from those of ordinary Portland cement. The appellants have also drawn our attention to the composition of white cement which is different from ordinary Portland cement. Properties of white cement are also somewhat different from those of ordinary Portland cement. In commercial parlance, white cement is considered as a different commercial commodity. It is submitted before us that if a customer asks for cement from a cement dealer, he will get ordinary Portland cement and not white cement. Our attention was drawn to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Purabachal international' Rel. A learned Single Judge in that judgment has discussed, at length the properties of ordinary Portland cement as against the properties of white cement. He has set out the relevant portions of a booklet issued by the indian Standards Institution under the title "indian Standard Specification for white Portland Cement". It states:"white Portland Cement is generally meant for non-structural use. White portland Cement is made from raw-material containing very little Iron Oxide and manganese Oxide. Limited quantities of certain chemicals, which will improve whiteness of cement without affecting the physical properties, may be added during manufacture. . . . "there is a separate book-let issued by the Indian Standards Institution under the title "indian Standards Specifications for Ordinary and Low Heat Portland cement", which also provides the technology, manufacturing process, chemical requirements, physical requirements etc. , of ordinary Portland cement. The chemical requirements of white Portland cement and ordinary and low heat portland cement are quite distinct and separate. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the pricing of the two commodities is quite different. Their chemical composition and uses are also quite different and in the commercial world, the two are treated as different commodities. He has therefore held that for the purpose of import, white cement is not a canalized item at serial No. 8 of appendix 5, Part-B. We respectfully agree with these findings of the learned single Judge. What is more important, the entry in question makes a clear reference to the connected policy of the Government in the Ministry of Industry in connection with the items canalized item at Serial No. 8 of Appendix 5, Part-B. This connected policy of the Government is reflected in the Imported Cement control Order of 1978, the Cement Control Order, 1967 and the press note which do not cover within their ambit white cement". ( 10 ) IN Associated Cement Company Limited Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Supra) the Supreme Court has stated as under:"the word "cement" has not been defined in the relevant notification. Therefore, it has to be understood in the same way as is understood in common parlance. Cement is exclusively used as a building material and is a commodity of everyday use. Therefore, we have to go only by the popular or commercial meaning of the term. The main property of the refactory is that it can withstand very high temperature, corrosion and abrasion. Cement is used for building roads, bridges and dams etc. , and also by common people for building residential or commercial buildings. Anyone buying cement for building purpose would under no circumstance buy refractory. Similarly, a mason or a supervisor would under no circumstance use refactory material in making a normal construction. The refractory is used for entirely different purpose, namely, for furnaces, linings and for insulation. A dealer would not supply refactory to anyone wanting to buy cement. In Cemento Corporation Ltd. , vs. Collector of central Excise (2002) 8 SCC 139 , it has been held that it is axiomatice that if the product is not cement but can be used for some purposes like cement, such product is not cement. We are, therefore, of the opinion that refractory material produced by the appellant does not fall within the entry "all types of cement" and consequently, it is not exigible to levy of 'export tax. " ( 11 ) AS we have already stated, Entry 9 of the First Schedule to the Act speaks of cement, water and weather proofing components. The Legislature has not used the expression 'cement of all kinds'. ( 12 ) IN Kajaria's case (Supra), the Supreme Court has made a clear distinction between ordinary Portland Cement and White Cement and thereafter, has come to a positive conclusion that white cement is not a Portland cement or cement. ( 13 ) IN view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Khajaria's case (Supra) as well as in Associated Cement Company Limited's case (Supra), it is required to be held that white cement is not a cement and therefore, it would not fall under entry 9 of the First Schedule to the Act. ( 13 ) IN view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Khajaria's case (Supra) as well as in Associated Cement Company Limited's case (Supra), it is required to be held that white cement is not a cement and therefore, it would not fall under entry 9 of the First Schedule to the Act. Therefore, in our opinion, the Authority was not justified in holding that white cement is a cement and it would fall under entry 9 of the First Schedule to the Act read with the Notification issued by the state Government dated 30-3-2002. ( 14 ) IN view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant requires to be allowed and the order passed by the Authority requires to be set aside and a proper declaration to the effect that the white cement is not a cement requires to be made. ( 15 ) ACCORDINGLY, the following: order (i) The Sales Tax Appeal is allowed. (ii) The order passed by the Advance Ruling Authority in Case No. AR. CLR. CR 73/04-05 dated 27-8-2004 is set aside. (iii) It is declared that the white cement is not a cement and it would not fall under Entry 9 of the First Schedule to the Act read with Notification dated 30. 3. 2002. Ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .