JUDGMENT PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. - These four revisions are filed by the Commissioner, Trade Tax/Commercial Tax, Uttarakhand, under section 55 read with section 80 of the Uttaranchal Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and directed against the order dated August 17, 2007, passed by the Chairman, Trade Tax Tribunal, in Second Appeal No. 74 of 2007, Second Appeal No. 75 of 2007, Second Appeal No. 76 of 2007 and Second Appeal No. 77 of 2007, which are allowed by the said authority by a common judgment challenged in these revisions. In all these four revisions, the question of law involved is as under : "Whether 'Chlormint candy', 'Chlormint gum', 'Chlormint ice', 'Chlormint ice gum', 'Chlormint with herbasole', 'Happydent', 'Gum dragg', 'chewable gum dragg', and 'Chatar patar', are, wrongly held to be ayurvedic medicine by the Trade Tax Tribunal ?" Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/assessee, Perfetti Van (India) Pvt. Ltd., is registered under the Uttaranchal Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as "the Uttaranchal VAT Act") for doing business of manufacturing and selling of ayurvedic medicines and confectionery items. The dispute relates to the assessment for the months of April 2006, May 2006, June 2006 and July 2006, for which the assessee submitted its monthly returns in form III on May 23, 2006, June 24, 2006, July 27, 2006 and August 23, 2006, respectively. The sales for the said four months were shown in the return of the items manufactured and produced by the assessee amounting to Rs. 97,34,613, Rs. 90,75,226, Rs. 89,47,046 and Rs. 78,28,978. Out of the said amount for the aforesaid four months, sales made through C.S.D. canteens were exempted from trade tax to the tune of Rs. 16,935, Rs. 9,072, Rs. 14,818 and Rs. 6,451. Apart from this, sales of items - "Chlormint" "Happydent" and "Chatar-patar", manufactured and sold by the assessee for the months of April 2006, May 2006, June 2006 and July 2006, were shown as Rs. 5,57,432, Rs. 5,17,019, Rs. 3,66,212 and Rs. 5,98,765 but only four per cent of tax was deposited on these sales and rest 8.5 per cent tax was deposited "under protest". 5,57,432, Rs. 5,17,019, Rs. 3,66,212 and Rs. 5,98,765 but only four per cent of tax was deposited on these sales and rest 8.5 per cent tax was deposited "under protest". The case of the revisionist is that "Chlormint candy" "Chlormint gum" "Chlormint ice" "Chlormint ice gum" "Happydent" and "Chatar patar" are confectionery items and tax payable on said items is 12.5 per cent and not four per cent which is applicable to the ayurvedic medicines and as such, the tax payable on said items is not at the rate of four per cent, which is applicable to the ayurvedic medicines. The case of the assessee/respondent is that the aforesaid items are ayurvedic medicines and as such, the tax is payable on the said items at the rate of four per cent. The assessing officer, the first appellate authority, i.e., the Joint Commissioner, Trade Tax, rejected the assessee's contention and held that the items manufactured and sold by the assessee are confectionery items and not ayurvedic medical preparations. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the aforesaid four appeals were filed by the assessee before the Trade Tax Tribunal, who accepted the case of the assessee and allowed the four appeals. Hence these revisions. Shri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, argued that "Chlormint candy", "Chlormint gum", "Chlormint ice", "Chlormint ice gum", "Chlormint with herbasole", "Happydent", "Gum draggy", "Chewing gum draggy" and "Chatar-patar", manufactured and sold by the assessee, are not ayurvedic medicines but only confectionery preparation. He further argued that the items in common parlance are not used as medicines but purchased by the customers for taste. On the other hand, Shri Sudhanshu Dhulia, learned Senior Advocate representing the assessee, contended that the aforesaid preparations are ayurvedic medicines, as the products in question have medicinal use and utility. Before further discussion, we think it proper to mention the relevant provisions of law, applicable to the case. Section 4 of the Uttaranchal Value Added Tax Act, 2005, which pertains to rate of tax on the various kinds of items provides four slabs on rate of tax. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Uttaranchal VAT Act, 2005, provides that a dealer shall be liable to pay tax on his taxable turnover in respect of goods specified in Schedule II(B) at the rate of four per cent. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Uttaranchal VAT Act, 2005, provides that a dealer shall be liable to pay tax on his taxable turnover in respect of goods specified in Schedule II(B) at the rate of four per cent. It further provides that in respect of goods other than those included in any of the Schedules, the rate of tax would be 12.5 per cent. Schedule II(B) of the aforesaid Act, classifies 126 items (for which rate of tax is four per cent). Item No. 41 of Schedule II(B), enumerates - "Drugs, medicines and pharmaceutical preparations (allopathic, ayurvedic, homeopathic and unani) including vaccines, syringes and dressings, medicated ointments produced under drug licence and the light liquid paraffin of IP Grade". The words "drugs" and "medicines" are not defined in the Uttaranchal Value Added Tax Act, 2005. To interpret the words "drugs" and "medicines", learned counsel for both the parties, referred to definitions given in section 3(a) and section 3(h) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Clause (a) of section 3 of the said Act, reads as under : "(a) 'Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drug' includes all medicines intended for internal or external use for or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease or disorder in human beings or animals and manufactured exclusively in accordance with the formulae described in the authoritative books of Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani Tibb systems of medicine, specified in the First Schedule." Clause (h) of section 3 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940, defines "patent or proprietary medicine" as under : "(h) 'patent or proprietary medicine' means, - (i) in relation to Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani Tibb systems of medicine all formulations containing only such ingredients mentioned in the formulae described in the authoritative books of Ayurveda, Siddha or Unani Tibb systems of medicine specified in the First Schedule, but does not include a medicine which is administered by parental route and also a formulation included in the authoritative books as specified in clause (a). (ii) in relation to any other systems of medicine. ..." Authoritative books of ayurvedic and Siddha systems, are mentioned in Schedule A of the First Schedule of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. Said list includes book titled "Bhav Prakash". Shri Sudhanshu Dhulia, learned Counsel for the respondent referred before us, item Nos. (ii) in relation to any other systems of medicine. ..." Authoritative books of ayurvedic and Siddha systems, are mentioned in Schedule A of the First Schedule of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. Said list includes book titled "Bhav Prakash". Shri Sudhanshu Dhulia, learned Counsel for the respondent referred before us, item Nos. 70 and 73 of Schedule I of book titled "Bhavprakashnighantu", written by Ganga Sahaye Pandey and Krishnachandra Chunekar. The entries in the Schedule of the said book describe qualities of peppermint and pudeena (spearmint). Our attention is also drawn to the fourth chapter of book titled "Dravyagurna Vijnana" Volume II, written by Prof. P. V. Sharma, in which medicinal qualities of eucalyptus are mentioned. On the basis of properties mentioned of peppermint and pudeena, it is argued that the items manufactured by the assessee have medicinal value and for the reason that the chlormint preparations included the aforesaid peppermint and spearmint, as its contents. Therefore, the same are ayurvedic medicines and not the confectionery. On the other hand, Shri Sudhir Kumar, learned Counsel for the revisionist, argued that Haldi (turmeric), Kalimirch (black pepper), etc., also have medicinal values and that does not make everything medicine. What makes an item medicine is formulae for the medicines in its proper dose for the treatment of a disease or disorder. No doubt, merely for the reason that some plant or its leaves, stem, or fruit has medicinal value does not make everything ayurvedic medicine. But in the present case, literature of "Chlormint with herbasole" and "Happydent" (white baking soda with mint flavour) shows that the same are manufactured under ayurvedic medicine manufacturing licence No. 157 ISM (HR). Annexure I to the counter-affidavit filed in these revisions shows that the Deputy Director-cum-Licensing Authority of Directorate of Ayush Haryana, has renewed the licence of the respondent - Perfetti Van Melle (India) Pvt. Ltd. for manufacturing ayurvedic/siddha drugs. Annexure - 3 to the counter-affidavit shows that the licensing authority and Director of Ayurvedic, Haryana, has approved the preparations of "Chlormint" and "Happydent", manufactured by the respondent/assessee under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It is not disputed that there are three kinds of medicines available in the market. Firstly, the medicines which can be purchased from only approved chemist/pharmacist that too only on the prescription of the registered medical practitioner. It is not disputed that there are three kinds of medicines available in the market. Firstly, the medicines which can be purchased from only approved chemist/pharmacist that too only on the prescription of the registered medical practitioner. Secondly, the medicines, which can be purchased from approved chemist/pharmacist but not necessarily required to be prescribed by registered medical practitioner. And thirdly, the medicines, which can be purchased without prescription of any medical practitioner and can be had not only from the shops of the approved chemists but also from other shops. It is not disputed that even those products containing formulae of constituents prescribed by authorised books of medicines, which are not prescribed by doctors and not required to be purchased necessarily from the approved chemists are also medicines, provided the same are manufactured under the drug licence issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. In the present case, the items - "Chlormint" and "Happydent" are manufactured by the assessee/respondent under the drug licence issued to it by the Directorate of Ayurvedic Medicines of State of Haryana. As to the formulations, the quantity of "Chlormint with herbasole" and "Happydent" are also mentioned in the covers they are sold (as is apparent from annexures filed with counter-affidavit). As to the utility of "Chlormint with herbasole" as mouth fresheners and that of "Happydent" (white baking soda with mint flavour) to keep the teeth clean, are also not disputed. Only for the reasons these items are also purchased by some customers for taste also, does not make them confectionery items particularly when the same are manufactured under a valid drug licence. As such, having heard learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the principle of law laid down in Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner Central Excise, Nagpur [2006] 145 STC 200 (SC); [2006] 3 SCC 266 and Naturalle Health Products (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad [2003] 1 RC 952; [2004] 9 SCC 136, and for the reasons discussed above, we hold that items - "Chlormint with herbasole" and "Happydent" manufactured by the assessee under valid drug licence are ayurvedic medicines and trade tax payable on said items is four per cent as provided in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Uttaranchal Value Added Tax Act, 2005. However, applying the same principles as discussed above, we hold that other items, i.e., "Chlormint candy", "Chlormint ice", "Chlormint gum", "Gum draggy", "chewable gum draggy" and "Chatar patar", manufactured and sold by the assessee/respondent, cannot be said to be ayurvedic preparations as in respect of these items it is not shown that the same are according to formulations prescribed by authoritative books of ayurvedic medicines. Therefore, charging of 12.5 per cent trade tax in respect of these items cannot be said to be wrong. Accordingly, the question of law stands answered. And the four revisions are partly allowed. The impugned order dated August 17, 2007, passed by Chairman, Trade Tax Tribunal, Dehradun, in Second Appeal No. 74 of 2007, Second Appeal No. 75 of 2007, Second Appeal No. 76 of 2007, and Second Appeal No. 77 of 2007, stands modified accordingly.