JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—Raising a short controversy the above revision has been filed under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act against the order dated 30th of May, 1996 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad in second appeal No. 261 of 1994 relevant to the assessment year 1989-90 (U.P.) whereby and whereunder the tribunal has held that the sale of packing material (paper) at the hand of the dealer is not exempt under the Notification No. 7037 dated 31st of January, 1985. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and are almost undisputed. The dealer sold packing paper to M/s. Kundan Gramodyog Sansthan Lucknow for a sum of Rs. 2,72,326/-. The said purchaser claimed exemption in view of the Notification No. 7037 dated 31st of January, 1985 as it was holding certificate for the same. The said certificate was filed before the Assessing Authority in support of the claim set out by the dealer with regard to the exemption, but was not accepted on the short ground that the said packing material was not used as raw material in the manufacture of soap by the purchaser. The purchaser is carrying on the business of manufacturing soap. The packing material was used by the purchaser as wrapper. The assessing authority was of the view that under the said notification the purchases of only such goods would be exempted which are used by such institutions in the manufacture of goods. The packing paper has not been used in the manufacture of product i.e. soap or in the manufacturing process, but was used for packing purposes. Therefore, it could not be exempted from purchase tax. The said order of the assessing authority is dated 27th of November, 1993 and has been confirmed in first appeal on 7th June, 1994 and in second appeal by the tribunal as well, by the order under Revision. In the memo of revision, the following question has been sought to be raised : “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in sustaining the order of the Assessing Authority, in dis-allowing the claim of exemption on the amount of Rs. 2,72,326.00 being the sale considerations of sale of packing paper to M/s. Kundan Gramodyog Sansthan Lucknow who has issued the certificate for exemption?” 3. 2,72,326.00 being the sale considerations of sale of packing paper to M/s. Kundan Gramodyog Sansthan Lucknow who has issued the certificate for exemption?” 3. Shri Piyush Agrawal in support of the revision has urged mainly the following two points : (1) That on a plain reading of the said notification No. 7037 dated 31st of January, 1985, serial No. 3, it is evident that the words ‘connected with’ does not include only the raw materials but they include all other materials which are needed later or sooner to a manufacturer of a product during the manufacturing process or thereafter for preparing his product saleable and marketable. (2) That the dealer sold the goods to the seller, who is holding a certificate issued by the authority concerned entitling it to make the purchases of such articles connected with the goods to be manufactured by him, without payment of any tax. The genuineness and correctness of the said certificate having been not questioned by the department at any stage, the dealer is entitled for exemption as he is in no manner responsible, if the purchasing dealer of the said purchases did not require it in connection with the production of soap. In other words, it was submitted that there was no ‘wrong’, or ‘false’ misrepresentation so far as the dealer is concerned, while entering into the transaction in question with M/s. Kundan Gramodyog Sansthan, U.P. Lucknow. The dealer should not be compelled to suffer, for no fault of his, submits the learned Counsel for the dealer. 4. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, supports the order of the tribunal and submits that since the soap having been manufactured without aid and help of packing material, the purchases of wrapper paper as packing material from the dealer by the institution is not materially connected with the manufacture of soap. 5. Considered the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is axiomatic that the controversy involved in the present revision centres round the interpretation of the relevant entry in the notification No. 7037 dated 31st of January, 1985. For the sake of convenience, the relevant extract from the said notification is reproduced below : SCHEDULE S. Description of goods/persons/class Conditions, if any. No. of persons 1 2 3 1. ............................................... 2. ............................................... 3. For the sake of convenience, the relevant extract from the said notification is reproduced below : SCHEDULE S. Description of goods/persons/class Conditions, if any. No. of persons 1 2 3 1. ............................................... 2. ............................................... 3. Institutions in U.P. certified by the All India Khadi & Village Industries Commission or the U.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board— (a) on the sale of products of Village On condition that the Industries specified below; and dealer selling such (b) on the purchase of any good connected goods to the said with the manufacture of products Village institution furnishes Industries or purchase products of a certificate from the Village Industries Specified below : said institution, duly LIST countersigned by the (1) ..... District Village (2) ..... Industries Officer of (3) ..... the Uttar Pradesh (4) Cottage soap industry. Village Industries Board, to the effect that the goods purchased by it are connected with the manufacture of prod ucts of the aforesaid Village Industries or are products of such Village Industries. 7. It is not in dispute that in the list ‘cottage soap industry’, is at serial No. 4. It follows that manufacturing of the soap is one of the products of village industries under the said notification. There is also no dispute that the dealer had furnished the requisite certificate, duly countersigned. In other words the dealer has fulfilled the conditions for grant of exemption, as provided for in the third column of the notification. 8. The real question which falls for determination is whether the sale of packing material can be said to be goods connected with manufacture of soap. A plain reading of the relevant portion of the said notification would show that the purchases of such goods connected with the manufacture of village cottage industries specified below in the notification is exempt from payment of purchase tax. The emphasis is that such purchase of goods should be “connected with” the manufacture of products. In the case on hand, the product is soap. It is true that in the manufacture of product i.e. the soap, the packing material (paper) is not used as such as a raw material. 9. The answer to the problem depends on the manner in which the words “connected with the manufacture of products” are interpreted. In the case on hand, the product is soap. It is true that in the manufacture of product i.e. the soap, the packing material (paper) is not used as such as a raw material. 9. The answer to the problem depends on the manner in which the words “connected with the manufacture of products” are interpreted. One way of looking it is to interpret them in strict sense to indicate only such items which are being used in the manufacture of product i.e. soap, the view which has been taken by the authorities below. The other way of looking is to interpret them in broader sense to embrace all such things which are intimately connected with the product to make the product marketable or commercially viable. 10. Packing material like wrapper paper has a far lasting effect on the product and its marketability. More often than not, a manufactured goods is not saleable in the market unless it is properly packed what so say about attractive packing. In other words, the manufacturing of a goods is one aspect of the matter and making it saleable in the market is another aspect. Both aspects of the matter are very essential and are interlinked and interwoven from the view point of business. The emphasis in the notification is on the manufacture of product which means ‘a product’ capable of being sold or is in saleable condition. A judicial notice can be taken that a soap is generally wrapped or packed in a case or in a small paper box, not with a view to make it marketable only, but also to preserve its fragrance and scent. With the advancement of advertising technology and Science, the fragrance of a soap play vital role in the market to increase its saleability. The point which I want to bring home is that if a soap is not properly wrapped or packed, it will loose its fragrance and will not attract buyers in today’s market. Such soap in other words, will have no commercial value. In my view the use of word ‘product’ in the said notification and the object behind granting exemption to institutions in U.P. certified by All India Khadi and Village Industries Commission or the Board or the U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board is to promote the Kutir Udyog i.e. handmade products. In my view the use of word ‘product’ in the said notification and the object behind granting exemption to institutions in U.P. certified by All India Khadi and Village Industries Commission or the Board or the U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board is to promote the Kutir Udyog i.e. handmade products. With a view to provide an edge to such manufacturers and to make their products competitive in the open market than the products manufactured with the help of sophisticated machinery, the legislature has granted exemption to such products of Kutir Udyog by way of incentive. Keeping the above factors in the background of mind, the use of words ‘product’ in manufacture of product and use of ‘words in connection with’ instead of raw material which is generally used, in such facts situation in fiscal Statutes, the insight of the notification is to grant exemption on such purchases which are used in the manufacture of goods and the object of the notification cannot get its goal without extending the benefit of exemption to such materials also like wrapper which are required by every manufacture to make the goods/products marketable and presentable in a well and systematic manner. The soap other than the washing soap is used for hygiene purposes and for personal care by every individual and in the present day of society a soap having no fragrance or scent is of no use or utility. 11. Conceptually, in sales tax matters, tax is leviable on sales or purchases. Therefore, it concerns more with the product in a seleable condition than the mere production of any article, which is primarily a concern of Excise Department. 12. A Full Bench of this Court in Basudeva v. Rex, AIR 1949 (All) 513 (FB), held that words ‘connected with’ must be considered amply, substantially or with direct connection and not in a fanciful or highly pragmatical manner. The above ratio of the Full Bench supports my above view. But at the same time the words ‘connected with’ as pointed out above must not be interpreted so widely to include the items having no substantially or direct connection with the product. 13. The above ratio of the Full Bench supports my above view. But at the same time the words ‘connected with’ as pointed out above must not be interpreted so widely to include the items having no substantially or direct connection with the product. 13. In STROUDS JUDICIAL DICTIONARY Fifth Edition the words “connected with” have been interpreted, the relevant extract is reproduced below : (9) “Connected with” (Judicature Act 1925 (c. 49), s. 70(5), can be used to describe a relation with a contemplated event which is still in futuro, see Johnson v. Johnson [1952] P. 47" 14. It is the first and primary role of the construction that intention of legislature must be found in the words used by the legislature itself. One has to look as what is clearly said. Where language and words are plain and clear, and there is no ambiguity, there is no need for any interpretative exercise. But the Apex Court quoting a passage from the Book of Shri G.P. Singh on Statutory Interpretation Eighth Volume 201 Edition has observed as follows : “It may look somewhat paradoxical that plain meaning rule is not plain and require some explanation. The rule, that plain words, require no construction, starts with the premise that the words are plain, which itself is a conclusion reached after construing the words. It is not possible to decide whether certain words are plain or ambiguous unless they are studied in their context and construed, D. Saibaba v. Bar Council of India, 2003 (4) JT 435 (P. 16).” 15. In connection with Section 4A which deals with the grant of exemption under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, it has been held by series of decisions such as in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (1991) 83 STC 234 (SC) relied on in Amit Plastic Industry v. Divisional Level Committee, (1995) 96 STC 538 (All), that a liberal and positive approach should be taken and the eligibility certificate should not be denied or cancelled on hyper technical or narrow considerations. 16. A statute is an edict of the Legislature and the conventional way of interpreting or construing a statute is to seek the ‘intention’ of its maker. 16. A statute is an edict of the Legislature and the conventional way of interpreting or construing a statute is to seek the ‘intention’ of its maker. A statute is to be construed according” to the intent of them that make it” and “the duty of judicature is to act upon the true intention of the Legislature vide Salmond “Jurisprudence”, 11th Edition, p. 152. If a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation the Court has to choose that interpretation which represents the true intention of the Legislature. The problem of interpretation is a problem of meaning of words and their effectiveness as medium of expression to communicate a particular thought. A word is used to refer to some object or situation in the real world and this object or situation has been assigned a technical name referent. “Words and phrases are symbols that stimulate mental references to referents.” But words of any language are capable of referring to different referents in different contexts and times, as held by the Apex Court in Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports v. K.T. Kosalram, AIR 1971 SC 1283 , p. 1289. Each word is but a symbol which may stand for one or a number of objects. The words and phrases take colour and character from the context and the times and speak differently in different contexts and times [see Municipal Corporation, Delhi v. Mohd. Yasin, AIR 1983 SC 617 ]. 17. Keeping the above principle of interpretation in the background of mind, the use of words “connected with” is of some importance and reflects the intention of legislature to give a wide meaning and to include therein such items or things also which may not be a raw material for the manufacture of product. Otherwise, there was no necessity to use the words “connected with” instead the words "in the manufacture of products”. In other words, the context in which the word product’ has been used here means a marketable product i.e. soap wrapped in paper. It has been said that the words of a Statute, when there is doubt about their meaning, are to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonise with the subject of the enactment and the object which the Legislature has in view. It has been said that the words of a Statute, when there is doubt about their meaning, are to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonise with the subject of the enactment and the object which the Legislature has in view. Their meaning is found not so much in a strict grammatical or etymological propriety of language, nor even in its popular use, as in the subject or in the occasion on which they are used, and the object to be attained. [See Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 ]. 18. I see no reason to take a different view while interpreting the notification under consideration which also deals with grant of exemption to village industries, to promote them which was a cherished desire of the Father of Nation. If a different or restricted meaning is given to word ‘product’ or to words ‘connected with’, the notification in question will not fulfil the object behind it. 19. With the sense of accomplishment, a leading Multinational Indian Company (ITC), with reference to its particular brand of soap has mentioned in its annual report 2008 that special carton packing has been developed by it internally and “Producce values, fragrances and packing have come together in.....” It shows the importance of packing qua soap in present economic scenario of the country, after globalization. 20. Packing in the present context is concluding part of manufacturing. 21. This world is governed more by appearances than by realities. 22. So far as second question is concerned, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions : (1) 1987 UPTC 1033 : Commissioner of Sales Tax v. S/s. Phoolson Trading Corporation. (2) 1994 UPTC 130 : M/s. Bharat Iron Stores v. Commissioner of Sales Tax. (3) 1996 (9) NTN 262 : Gaurav Traders v. C.S.T. 23. In support of his contention that the dealer was entitled for grant of exemption from tax as the transaction was covered by the requisite certificate which has not been found to be incorrect or non-genuine one. On this point also, the dealer is entitled for exemption and no liability can be fastened on it in respect of the turnover of Rs. 3,72,326/- which represents the purchases of M/s. Kundan Gramodyog Sansthan, Lucknow. 24. The problem can be looked with another angle. On this point also, the dealer is entitled for exemption and no liability can be fastened on it in respect of the turnover of Rs. 3,72,326/- which represents the purchases of M/s. Kundan Gramodyog Sansthan, Lucknow. 24. The problem can be looked with another angle. So far as the dealer is concerned, it fulfils the conditions as prescribed in column-3 of the notification No. 7037 already reproduced above. None of the authorities below have found that the dealer has failed to furnish the requisite form in requisite manner. This being so, the dealer applicant is entitled to get exemption from tax on the sale of packing paper in question. It was open to the department to proceed against the purchasing dealer if the purchasing dealer has wrongly utilized the facility which was not otherwise available to it under the aforestated notification No. 7037 dated 31.1.1985. 25. In any view of the matter, thus, the levy of tax on the sale of packing paper on the amount of Rs. 2,72,326/- is not taxable at the hands of the applicant. 26. It is held that the Tribunal was not legally justified in sustaining the order of the assessing authority in disallowing the claim of exemption on the amount of Rs. 2,72,326/- and in dismissing the second appeal filed by the dealer before it. 27. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order under revision dated 30th of May, 1996 is hereby set aside and the second appeal No. 261 of 1994 for the Assessment Year 1989-90 filed before the tribunal stands allowed. 28. The applicant is also entitled for Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousands only) towards the cost. ————