Judgment :- (1.) THIS application is directed against an order dated 30th March, 2007 passed by the learned Tribunal whereby the learned Tribunal was pleased to set aside the order of the west Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate and revisional Board as well as the order of the appellate authority. (2.) THE petitioner/appellant was a registered dealer under the Bengal finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1941 Act"). The petitioner at the relevant point of time was manufacturing various iron and steel products including Hamilton Poles. In 1994-1995, the petitioner/appellant purchased hot rolled/cold rolled coils and/or sheets, rivets and other materials for manufacturing purpose. During the process of assessment for the year 1994-1995 the appellant claimed the sale of manufactured Hamilton Poles exempted from payment of tax on the ground that Hamilton Poles were declared goods under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1956 Act")and that tax had already been paid on purchase of raw materials. According to the petitioner/appellant, hamilton Poles are nothing but sheets in galvanized and rivetted condition and cannot be treated as a different item or commodity for the purpose of levy of tax. The assessing authority disallowed such claim on the basis of the judgment of the Tribunal reported in 1997 (30) STA 81 (M/s. Bansal Mechanical Works Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Assessment Wing and Ors.). (3.) BEING aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant commissioner of Commercial Taxes, chowringhee Circle. The Appellate authority upheld the assessment but set aside the demand notices on a technical ground. Thereafter, fresh demand notices were issued and fresh appeal was filed by the appellant. Since none appeared before the Appellate authority on behalf of the appellant the appeal was dismissed ex-parte on march 5, 2003. A revision was-filed before the West Bengal Commercial taxes Appellate and Revisional Board. During pendency of the revision before the Board the Honble Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal made in M/s. Bansal Mechanical Works Ltd. (supra). The Honble Supreme court opined that Hamilton Poles were strips of steel in rolled and rivetted condition and declared goods under sub-clause (vi) of Section 14 (iv) of the 1956 Act. During pendency of the revision before the Board the Honble Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal made in M/s. Bansal Mechanical Works Ltd. (supra). The Honble Supreme court opined that Hamilton Poles were strips of steel in rolled and rivetted condition and declared goods under sub-clause (vi) of Section 14 (iv) of the 1956 Act. (4.) AT the time of hearing of the revision by the Board, the Board followed the judgment of the Honble Supreme court and allowed the revision in favour of the appellant. Being aggrieved the revenue moved before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal set aside the order of the Board. Hence, this application and/or appeal had filed by the appellant/petitioner. The only question has to be determined in this application is whether Hamilton Poles, being strips in galvanized and rivetted condition is a separate commodity from hot and cold rolled strips. (5.) IT appears that the learned Tribunal after considering the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in m/s. Bansal Mechanical Works Ltd. (supra)wherein the Honble Supreme Court held that Hamilton Poles being galvanized and rivetted strips fall within the meaning of the sub-clause (vi) of Clause (iv)of Section 14 of the 1956 Act and although the Supreme Court has specifically stated that Hamilton Poles are to be accepted as strips of steel in rolled and rivetted condition. Even then the learned Tribunal held that the Supreme court in M/s. Bansal Mechanical Works Ltd. (supra) did not consider whether strips of steel and/or strips of steel in rivetted and galvanized condition were different commercial products or not. The learned Tribunal also relied upon the decisions reported in 1976 (37) STC 319 (State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra)and 1998 (108) STC 258 (K. A. K, Anwar and Co.) and further on the basis of the Section 14 (iii) of the C. S. T. Act, the learned Tribunal has found out that with the change of its shape a particular commodity may become a different commodity and be exigible to tax separately and only thing is to be considered whether the particular different state of a commodity is commonly regarded in the trade circle. The learned Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the use of word both in sub-clause (vi) of Clause (iv) of section 14 does not make the nature of the provision of the said subclause (vi) of Clause (iv) different from Clause (iii) of Section 14. Hence, the learned tribunal set aside the order so passed by the Board and further held that it was not examined whether the hamilton Poles were being marketed and accepted as a commercial commodity different from the basic material used in the process. (6.) WE have also heard the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant as well as the respondents. We have also considered those sections which were placed before us. The Section 14 (iv) (vi) states as follows:-" (vi) sheets, hoops, strips and skelp, both black and galvanised, hot and cold rolled plain and corrugated, in all qualities, in straight lenghts and in coil form, as rolled and in rivetted condition. " (7.) WE have also considered Section 15 (b), every sales tax law of a state shall, insofar as it imposes or authorises the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of declared goods, be subject to the following restrictions and conditions, namely:- (a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; (b) Where a tax has been levied under that law in respect of the sale or purchase inside the state of any declared goods and such goods are sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, and tax has been paid under this Act in respect of the sale of such goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, the tax levied under such law shall be reimbursed to the person making such sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be provided in any law in force in that State. (8.) WE have also considered the decision of the three Judges Bench of the Honble Supreme Court which dealt with the Section 14 (iii) of the central Sales Tax Act which, in fact, dealt with the hides and skins and the court came to the conclusion that there is nothing in the language of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 leading to the conclusion that these two different commodities, that raw hides and skins and dressed hides and skins are two different goods/commodities. It has been specifically stated that the words "hides and skins whether in a raw or dressed state" clearly indicate that raw hides and skins were a different item from dressed hides and skins. Accordingly, it was held that when the appellant who purchased raw hides and skins on payments of tax they would be liable to pay sales tax in respect of dressed hides and skins and the levy will not fall foul of section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act. (9.) THE decision was also relied upon before us which is reported in 2004 (17) STC 426 [jindal (India) Ltd. and Another v. Assistant Commissioner,commercial Taxes and Ors. ] where the Division Bench held that it has merely been put an end and would not make two different commodities and a single item for the purpose of taxes. (10.) WE have also considered the decision reported in 1963 (14) STC 355 (A. Hajee Abdul Shukoor and Co. v. The State of Madras) where the honble Supreme Court held as follows:-"the next question is whether sub-rule (1) of Rule 16 became invalid when this Court declared sub-rule (2) invalid in Mehtabs case. The contention for the petitioner is that it became invalid because hides and skins, whether tanned or untanned, constituted one commodity and that therefore tax cannot be levied on the sale of hides and skins in the raw condition when no tax is levied on the sale of hides and skins in the tanned condition. It is contended for the State that they are different commodities, and constitute two separate categories for purposes of taxation. We are inclined to the view that they form different categories. Hides and skins in the untanned condition are undoubtedly different as articles of merchandise than tanned hides and skins. It is contended for the State that they are different commodities, and constitute two separate categories for purposes of taxation. We are inclined to the view that they form different categories. Hides and skins in the untanned condition are undoubtedly different as articles of merchandise than tanned hides and skins. It is urged for the petitioners that tanning is only a preservative process which makes no change in the nature of the article itself. The question whether tanned skins and hides are different commodities from raw skins and hides has been considered by Courts a few times. The fact that certain articles are mentioned under the same heading in a statute or the Constitution does not mean that they all constitute one commodity. The inclusion of several articles under the same heading may be for a reason other than that the articles constitute one and the same thing. The real question is whether these provisions treat raw hides and skins and dressed or tanned hides and skins as one class of goods for the purpose of taxation or as two different classes of goods. If they treat them as one class of goods, the contention for the petitioner loses force as taxing of hides and skins at the time of their sale in a raw condition meets the requirements of law as hides and skins could be taxed only at a single point. If the dressed or tanned hides and skins are not taxed at the time of their sale that does not offend against the statutory provisions. No question of discrimination arises as a sale raw hides and skins of whatever origin, i. e. , whether produced in state or imported into the State would be equally liable to the of tax. " (11.) THE Honble Division Bench of this High Court came to the conclusion in Jindal (India) Ltd. (supra)that in our opinion in the said case it was clearly decided that articles mentioned under same sub-heading does not mean that they all constitute one commodity. Law was decided therein generally and not restricted to hides and skins only. Therefore, when finding on fact in the present case is that two articles in same sub-heading are two different commodities one having emerged from other on processing the product is not entitled to tax exemption even if for other item already tax has been levied. Law was decided therein generally and not restricted to hides and skins only. Therefore, when finding on fact in the present case is that two articles in same sub-heading are two different commodities one having emerged from other on processing the product is not entitled to tax exemption even if for other item already tax has been levied. (12.) THE Honble Supreme Court has specifically dealt with the matter with this question in the said decision of M/s. Bansal Mechanical Works ltd. (supra) and held that Hamilton poles are strips of steel in rolled and rivetted condition and, accordingly, fall within the description contained in the sub-clause (vi) of Section 14 (iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Accordingly, we must hold that we are bound to follow the decision of the honble Supreme Court and the same submission made before the Honble supreme Court which was rejected and the Honble Supreme Court came to the said conclusion. (13.) ACCORDINGLY, we have no other alternative than to accept the said position in the Bansal matter and set aside the order passed by the learned tribunal and uphold the order so passed by the Board. Therefore, this appeal is allowed.