Judgment :- Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal has been preferred under Section 62 (1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with Rule 80 (1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 against the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 2.3.2006 holding that super glue imported and marketed by the appellant is taxable at the rate of 12.5% coming under serial number 3 (8) of SRO 82/06. 2. Appellant is importing and distributing STICKO brand super glue, which, according to the appellant, is manufactured from organic chemicals and is mostly used as industrial input particularly in the automobile industry Appellant has been collecting 12.5% till July 2005 when they have obtained certificate from the Cochin University of Science and Technology stating that the STICKO brand Super Glue marketed by the appellant is Methyl Cyano Acrylate which is an Ester of Unsaturated Acyclic Monoacid which comes under HSN Code 2916.19.50. Appellant then sent a letter dated 19.7.2005 to the Sales Tax Officer stating that the Super Glue STICKO brand marketed by the appellant is an item falling under item 164 (10) “esters of unsaturated acyclic monoacids not elsewhere specified” of the Third Schedule of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 under which tax payable for the sale of the item shall not exceed 4%. Sales Tax Officer found no reason to accept the said request which led to the appellant filing W.P.C.No 1983 of 2006 before this court. This court disposed of the writ petition directing the Commissioner to take a decision on the claim raised by the appellant regarding rate of tax on STICKO brand Super Glue marketed by the appellant. Consequently the matter was considered by the Commissioner. Commissioner took the view that Super Glue imported and marketed by the appellant is taxable at 12.5% coming under serial number 3(8) of SRO 82/06. The Commissioner has however failed to consider the question as to whether the super glue falls under item 164(10) of the Third Schedule to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 or not. 3. Sri V.M. Kurien, counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the item would fall under 164(10) of Third Schedule. Reliance was placed on the certificate issued by the Cochin University of Science and Technology. 3. Sri V.M. Kurien, counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the item would fall under 164(10) of Third Schedule. Reliance was placed on the certificate issued by the Cochin University of Science and Technology. Counsel submitted that even if “super glue” will not fall under item 164(10) the Department can demand tax at 12.5% only from the date of the gazette notification, dated 28.1.2006. The amended clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 vide Amendment Act 39 of 2005 was notified by the Government in the gazette only with effect from 28.01.2006. 4. Learned Government Pleader Sri Georgekutty Mathew on the other hand contended that even before the issuance of the notification dated 28.1.2006 appellant was bound to pay tax at 12.5% since unamended clause (d) had stated that in the case of goods not falling under clauses (a), (b) or (c) the rate of tax payable was 12.5% at all points of sale of such goods within the State. Counsel submitted that super glue product of the appellant did not fall under item 164 (10) of the Third Schedule, that is why the appellant had collected tax at the rate of 12.5%. Placing reliance on the decision of the apex court in Muller and Phipps (India) Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay I (2004 (4) SCC 787) learned Government Pleader submitted that what is required to be considered in the matter of this nature is where commodity taxation is taken up by the state authorities the courts should be guided by the manner of classification of the goods which are brought to tax rather than the etymological meaning of the product in question or expert’s opinion thereto. 5. Admittedly appellant was collecting 12.5% tax for the product in question, prior to the substitution of clause (d) by Act 30 of 2005 and before the notification was published in the gazette on 28.1.2005. Substituted clause (d) will not help the appellant. Substituted clause (d) says that in the case of goods not falling under clauses (a) or (c) the rate of tax payable is 12.5% at all points of sale of such goods within the State, Government, of course, has to notify a list of goods taxable at the rate of 12.5%. But the issuance of notification is of no consequence so far as the appellant is concerned. We have examined the product “super glue” made available. But the issuance of notification is of no consequence so far as the appellant is concerned. We have examined the product “super glue” made available. Product is evidently a glue used for joining things together. “Ester of unsaturated acyclic monoacid” comes under serial number 66 of the Third Schedule, which deals with industrial inputs and packing materials specified in List A to the Third Schedule. Super glue will not fall under that category, consequently the appellant was collecting tax at the rate of 12.5%. Court in our view is guided by the manner of classification of goods which are brought to tax rather than the experts opinion or the etymological meaning of the product. 6. WE are therefore inclined to accept the stand of the State that the product will not fall under item No.164(10) of List A of the Third Schedule of the VAT Act and that the product “super glue” imported and marketed by the appellant is taxable at 12.5% which falls under serial number 3(8) of SRO 86/06. Appeal lacks merits and the same is dismissed. I.A.Nos.874 and 1512 of 2006 are also dismissed.