JUDGMENT (Per R. Gururajan, J.) M/s. Preston India Private Limited is before us aggrieved by the Advance Ruling/Clarification Order dated 30.9.2005 - Annexure-B. The following questions of law are framed in terms of the pleadings. 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case, was the Respondent - Authority justified in law in holding that "EVA Footwear" was liable to tax at the rate of 12.5% as non-scheduled goods falling under Section 4(1) of the Act, for the period pertaining to 7.6.2005 onwards ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case, was the Respondent - Authority justified in law in holding that "Walkie Chappals" was liable to tax at the rate of 12.5% as non-scheduled goods falling under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, for the periods between 1.4.2005 to 6.6.2005 ? Appellant is engaged in manufacture of Chappals at its unit in Bangalore. Entry 47 of the Third Schedule appended to the Act as it stood between the periods 1.4.2005 to 6.6.2005 would read as "Plastic Footwear" for the purpose of levy of tax. It was subsequently substituted by Karnataka Act No. 27 of 2005. The substituted provision came into force with effect from 7.6.2005. Entry 64 would read as under : "64. Moulded Plastic Footwear, Hawai Chappals and their straps". The Appellant manufactures footwear known as "Walkie Chappals", the sole of which is made up of two layers; the upper layer consists of Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA) which is a Plastic Polymer and the bottom layer is made up of Rubber Sheet. The Strap of the footwear which is also called as upper, is made of Man-made Fabric with plastic coated on it. The assembling is done by pasting the bottom layer, the upper layer and the upper together using adhesives like Neoprene Bond and P.U. Adhesive. According to the Appellant, Walkie Chappal was taxable under Entry 47 of the Third Schedule as it stood between the periods 1.4.2005 to 6.6.2005 at 4% and with effect from 7.6.2005, at 12.5%. The Appellant also manufactures footwear called as "EVA Footwear". According to the Appellant, Walkie Chappal was taxable under Entry 47 of the Third Schedule as it stood between the periods 1.4.2005 to 6.6.2005 at 4% and with effect from 7.6.2005, at 12.5%. The Appellant also manufactures footwear called as "EVA Footwear". It is made up of Moulded Plastic Footwear wherein two pieces of plastic which pertain to Sole and Strap made of Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA) Polymers are moulded together with a stud which is made up of PVC Compound being inserted in the northern end of the footwear so as to enable the principal toe and the toe next to it of the wearer to have a firm grip while using the said footwear. Entry 47 of the Third Schedule as it stood between 1.4.2005 to 6.6.2005 provided tax at 4% and thereafter, it was covered under Entry 64 of the Third Schedule. The Appellant made an Application before the Authority for Clarification seeking advance ruling/clarification on the above referred facts. After hearing, the Authority has chosen to pass the following order. "8. In view of the above, we made the following ruling. - Applicability of rate of tax on - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (i) EVA Footwear from 4% Sl. No. 47 of Third Schedule to 1.4.2005 to 6.6.2005 the KVAT Act, 2003 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (ii) EVA Footwear for the 12.5% under Section 4(1)(b) of the period from 7.6.2005 Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. onwards --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (iii) Walkie Chappals from 12.5% under Section 4(1)(b) of the 1.4.2005 onwards Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003" --------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is in these circumstances, this Appeal is filed by raising the above referred questions of law. Sri R. V. Prasad, learned Counsel for the Appellant would argue that the Authority is wrong in classifying Walkie Chappal as not falling under the description of 'Plastic Footwear' for the period from 1.4.2005 to 6.6.2005. He would further say that he would not press the subsequent finding with regard to the tax being fixed at 12.5% with effect from 7.6.2005. He confines his argument to the period falling from 1.4.2005 to 6.6.2005. He says that in Walkie Chappal, the material used for the upper portion is Man-made Fabric with plastic coating and therefore, the entry of Plastic Footwear would cover the Walkie Chappal for this relevant period. He confines his argument to the period falling from 1.4.2005 to 6.6.2005. He says that in Walkie Chappal, the material used for the upper portion is Man-made Fabric with plastic coating and therefore, the entry of Plastic Footwear would cover the Walkie Chappal for this relevant period. Insofar as EVA Chappal is concerned, learned Counsel would argue that the finding of the Authority in para 7 is unsustainable. He would say that the entry as it stood for the period from 1.4.2005 to 6.6.2005 was of 'Plastic Footwear' and thereafter, as 'Moulded Plastic Footwear'. He would also say that the Authority has rejected the request of the Appellant on the ground that EVA Footwear is not made in a Single Mould. Learned Counsel would further say that the theory of Single Mould is not available in the light of the clear entries in terms of the statute. He would also invite our attention to a subsequent amendment providing for Single Mould in Entry 64 in terms of Karnataka Act No. 27 of 2005. Per contra, Smt. Sujatha supports the Advance Ruling. She would contend that the reasoning that the reasoning provided in paragraphs 6 and 7 are tenable. She wants the Appeal to be dismissed. After hearing, we have carefully perused the material placed on record. Insofar as Walkie Chappal is concerned, we are concerned only for the period between 1.4.2005 to 6.6.2005. For this period, the Entry to reads as 'Plastic Footwear'. The material on record would show that the material used for upper portion is Man-made Fabric with plastic coating. That being the case, in our view, the reasoning of the Authority in para 6 of the order that it does not fall within the description of Plastic Footwear is acceptable. Therefore, we reject the contention of Mr. Prasad in this regard. Insofar as EVA Chappal is concerned, we find substance in the argument of Mr. Prasad, learned Counsel for the Appellant. Admittedly, the entry would read as 'Plastic Footwear' for the period from 1.4.2005 to 6.6.2005 and as 'Moulded Plastic Footwear' from 7.6.2005 onwards. The material on record would reveal that EVA Chappal is made of plastic. The Authority has chosen to reject the contention of the Appellant on the ground that EVA Chappal is not made in a Single Mould. The insertion of Single Mould in terms of the order is unacceptable to us. The material on record would reveal that EVA Chappal is made of plastic. The Authority has chosen to reject the contention of the Appellant on the ground that EVA Chappal is not made in a Single Mould. The insertion of Single Mould in terms of the order is unacceptable to us. The entry is very clear as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel Sri Prasad. As a matter of fact, the Government, realising the importance of Single Mould, probably thought it fit to amend the entry in terms of Karnataka Act No. 4 of 2006. The subsequent amendment including Single Mould would show that Single Mould was not available prior to amendment. In the circumstances, we deem it proper to accept the argument of Sri Prasad with regard to the entries falling under the description of Plastic Footwear from 1.4.2005 to 6.6.2005 and Moulded Plastic Footwear with effect from 7.6.2005. In the result, this Appeal is partly allowed. Applicability of rate of tax for Walkie Chappal is accepted. The rate of tax of EVA Footwear for the period from 7.6.2005 is set aside. It would be calculated only at 4%. Ordered accordingly. No costs.