JUDGMENT 1. - These three revision petitions are directed against the order of the Tax Board dated 2.12.2004 whereby the Tax Board upholding the order of the first appellate authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 1.10.2002 held that 'Gulab, Chandan and Badam Sharbat' manufactured by the respondent-assessee under the license obtained by it under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1941 are taxable @ 6% as Ayurvedic medicine and not @ 12% as 'non-alcoholic potable liquid'. 2. The assessing authority by resort to Section 30 of the R.S.T. Act, which empowers the assessing authority to reassess the escaped turnover, imposed tax @ 12% on the sale of 'Gulab, Chandan and Badam Sharbats' manufactured by the assessee whereas the assessee had shown the same as taxable only @ 6% and was assessed accordingly in the original assessments. The first appeal filed by the assessee against such re-assessment order was allowed by the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vide its order dated 1.10.2002 and the said order was upheld by the learned Tax Board as well by the impugned order dated 2.12.2004. Both the appellate authorities have held that these three special types of 'Sharbats' produced with the ingredients as per prescribed Ayurvedic literature under the license obtained by the assessee under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act had medicinal value and they not only help the consumer of the same in giving the cool effect in the heart and head but also prevented various diseases of stomach and head as per the Ayurvedic literature and the same were prepared according to the formulae given in Ayurvedic literatures and therefore, taxable only 6% as Ayurvedic medicine. The revenue has filed these revision petitions being aggrieved by the said order of the Tax Board. 3. Mr. Arnit Ratnawat for Mr. R.B. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for 1 the petitioner-revenue, urged that the sale of the 'Sharbats' by the assessee during the relevant periods i.e. 1994- 95, 1996-97 and 1996-97 was taxable @ 12% under Entry No. 72 of notification dated 27.3.1995 (S. No. 968 : F.4(11) FDGr.IV/95- 49). Entry 72 reads as under : "All kinds of eatables and non-alcoholic potable liquid such as fruit 1 syrups, distilled juices (ark), Jams (Chatnies, Murabbas), Fruit Juices, Essences, Gulkand, Concentrates, Cornflakes and Wheat flakes, Custard powder, Baking Powder and Ice-Cream Powder.'' 4. Entry 72 reads as under : "All kinds of eatables and non-alcoholic potable liquid such as fruit 1 syrups, distilled juices (ark), Jams (Chatnies, Murabbas), Fruit Juices, Essences, Gulkand, Concentrates, Cornflakes and Wheat flakes, Custard powder, Baking Powder and Ice-Cream Powder.'' 4. Similar entry is Entry No. 70 in the notification dated 15.3.1996 (S. No. 1037 : F4(69)FD/Tax Divn./95-32), which is reproduced as under : "All kinds of eatables and non-alcoholic potable liquid such as fruit syrups, distilled juices (ark), Jams (Chatnies, Murabbas), Fruit Juices, Essences, Gulkand, Concentrates, Cornflakes and Wheat flakes, Custard powder, Baking Powder and Ice-Cream Powder." 5. He submitted that these 'Sharbats' even though having medicinal value 2 continued to be 'Sharbats' and non-alcoholic potable liquids and therefore, were taxable @ 12%. 6. On the side opposite, Mr. Nitin Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee, argued that words 'non- alcoholic potable liquids' in the aforesaid Entry Nos. 70 and 72 are circumscribed by words 'such as fruit 3 syrups' etc. and therefore, since 'Sharbat' was not specifically included in these entries, learned assessing authority had erred in imposing tax @ 12% particularly by resort to Section 30 of the Act. He submitted that the said special types of Sharbats, namely, 'Gulab, Chandan and Badam Sharbats' were manufactured by the assessee admittedly under the license granted to it 3 under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act after due enquiry and same were prepared as per formulae and ingredients specified in the authentic Ayurvedic literature and therefore, they had certain medicinal value in them, hence, they were liable to tax as 'drugs and medicines' @ 6% and the assessee had rightly paid only 6% tax on the. sale of such 'Sharbats'. He relied upon a recent 4 decision of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. M/s. Deys Medical Stores Ltd., Jaipur & Anr., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2139/1999 (2007) 9 Tax Update 97 , in which this Court held as under : "18. sale of such 'Sharbats'. He relied upon a recent 4 decision of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. M/s. Deys Medical Stores Ltd., Jaipur & Anr., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2139/1999 (2007) 9 Tax Update 97 , in which this Court held as under : "18. Having surveyed the aforesaid decisions, in our considered view, while deciding the question as to whether the product is a drug a or medicine or medicament or pharmaceutical preparation or a cosmetic or a perfumery oil, the Court has to have regard to the nature of the article, the ingredients thereof, the uses to which they are put with specific reference to the a information, as to how the goods are treated in the market as such, the literature and whether the manufacturer of the goods applied for a license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 as a drug or medicine and the same having been obtained and then the goods are marketed as such. Surely, the preparation label, literature, character, common and commercial parlance understanding with the goods and the manufacture of the product after procuring necessary license or approval of the Drugs Controller may be indicative as to whether such product is a 'cosmetic' or a 'medicine'/drug. 19. It is not necessary as a matter of law to look into the dictionary meaning of the words 'medicine' and 'drug' or 'cosmetic' since in the construction of entry in a taxing statute providing for classification, the dictionary meaning of the word is not of much assistance. 20.... 21.... 22. That both the aforesaid products namely, 'Keo Karpin Hair Vitalizer' and 'Keo Karpin Baby Oil' are manufactured as per the composition approved by the Directorate of Drugs Control has not been questioned. 23. In other words, the products `Keo Karpin Hair Vitalizer' as well as `Keo Karpin Baby Oil' are being manufactured by the respondent No.1 after obtaining requisite permission and license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 as a medicinal preparation and these goods are marketed by them as such. A look at the aforesaid composition would show that in 'Keo Karpin Hair Vitalizer', there is no element of hair oil and what it contains is the various medicines like Keratin Hydrolysate, D- Panthenol IP, Biotin, Recorcinol IP. 66 etc. Similarly, 'Keo Karpin Baby Oil' has ingredients of medicines like Isopropyl Myristate etc. A look at the aforesaid composition would show that in 'Keo Karpin Hair Vitalizer', there is no element of hair oil and what it contains is the various medicines like Keratin Hydrolysate, D- Panthenol IP, Biotin, Recorcinol IP. 66 etc. Similarly, 'Keo Karpin Baby Oil' has ingredients of medicines like Isopropyl Myristate etc. According to the respondent No.1, 'Keo Karpin Hair Vitalizer' prevents untimely fall of hair and helps in removal of dandruff. Even an expert opinion was placed before the authorities who opined that vitalizer was a formulated product for use in excessive fall of hair and dandruff. 24. Every pack of vitalizer mentions that it provides deep down treatment for prematured and excessive hair loss. It cures common acute bacterial and fungal scalp infections caused by pollution, nutritional deficiencies and from excessive strain of modern life. 25. In so far as 'Keo Karpin Baby Oil' is concerned, the manufacturer claims that the product protects the children from Rickets, checks Vitamin A & E deficiency and its regular massage provides good health to the children round the year. 26. Applying the tests Lald down by the Supreme Court in the case of B.P.L. Pharmaceuticals Limited and followed in the matters of 'Banphool Hair Oil', 'Himtaj Oil' and 'Maha Bhringraj Oil', it cannot be said that the finding of the Taxation Tribunal that the products viz., 'Keo Karpin Hair Vitalizer' and 'Keo Karpin Baby Oil' fall in entry 60 and not the entry 69 of the afore-referred notification suffers from any error of law." 7. Learned counsel for the revenue then tried to submit that the assessing authority had noted in the assessment order that the assessee himself had collected 12% tax on sale of 'Sharbats' in sister concern M/s. Sri Edibles Pvt. Ltd. However, when question as to what was the kind of 'Sharbats' sold by such sister concern as the assessment order did not specify the details of 'Sharbats' on which 12% tax was applied by such sister concern, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the record of the said sister concern has since then been destroyed by the revenue authority in accordance with the Rules. An additional affidavit of Mr. Shriram Choudhary, A.C.T.O., Ward-III, Circle-H, Jaipur, the officer-incharge of the case was furnished in the Court to this effect. However, neither any specific Rules nor standing orders were produced to support such destruction of record. An additional affidavit of Mr. Shriram Choudhary, A.C.T.O., Ward-III, Circle-H, Jaipur, the officer-incharge of the case was furnished in the Court to this effect. However, neither any specific Rules nor standing orders were produced to support such destruction of record. He, however, submitted that no such details could be deciphered from the impugned assessment order. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the 'Sharbats' sold by the sister concern were not 'Gulab, Chandan and Badarn Sharbats', but different 'Sharbats' on which admittedly assessee paid higher rate of tax as the same were neither prepared as per formulae and ingredients given in the Ayurvedic literature, nor the assessee held any license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for manufacturing for sale of other kinds of Sharbats in its sister concern. 8. Having considered the rival submissions of both the parties and given a thoughtful consideration to the controversy in hand, this Court is of the opinion that the present revision petitions filed by the revenue have no substance and the same deserve to be dismissed. The commodities in question i.e. 'Gulab, Chandan and Badam Sharbats' prepared by the assessee in accordance with the Ayurvedic literature and formulae given therein under the licence held by the assessee under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, admittedly have medicinal value. These special types of Sharbats have not only different taste but cooling effect on the mind and body of human beings who consume the same, but they are also helpful in curing and preventing certain disorders of head and stomach. Ayurved is undoubtedly one way of treating the diseases of human beings and the words 'drugs and medicines' cannot be narrowly construed to include only allopathic, homeopathic and Yunani drugs. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act covers Ayurvedic medicines as well and the license is required to be obtained for manufacture of Ayurvedic drugs and medicines as well. The liquid potable in the form of 'Gulab, Chandan or Badam Sharbats' having medicinal value can, therefore, clearly fall within the definition of 'drugs and medicines'. The proposition of law is that where a commodity can fall under a specific entry, the taxing authority cannot tax it as general or residuary entry. The words 'non-alcoholic potable liquids' in the entries quoted above are followed by words such as'. The specified items admittedly do not include 'Sharbats'. The proposition of law is that where a commodity can fall under a specific entry, the taxing authority cannot tax it as general or residuary entry. The words 'non-alcoholic potable liquids' in the entries quoted above are followed by words such as'. The specified items admittedly do not include 'Sharbats'. Even if, words 'such as' are taken to be illustrative and not limited to the commodities specifically specified following these words, still since the aforesaid commodities, 'Gulab, Chandan and Badam Sharbats' fall under the specific entry relating to 'drugs and medicines', there is no possibility of treating the same as falling under the general description of 'non-alcoholic potable liquids' covered by Entry Nos. 70 and 72 of the aforesaid quoted notifications. 9. Consequently, these revision petitions filed by the revenue are liable to be dismissed and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs.Revisions Dismissed. *******