JUDGMENT K. Raviraja Pandian, J. - The revision is at the instance of the Revenue against order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore dated November 14, 2000 passed in Tribunal Appeal No. 5 of 2000. The point involved in this revision is whether cotton yarn and sewing thread are one and the same commodity for the purpose of taxation. The Tribunal has held that they are one and the same following the decision of this court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. R.V. Krishniah Chetty and Sons [1994] 92 STC 262. The Revenue relied on the decision of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal in State of Tamil Nadu v. Popular Thread Factory reported in [2000] 118 STC 59, wherein it was held that sewing thread is not declared goods and does not fall under entry 3 of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. On that ground, the present revision is filed to resolve the question of law as aforesaid. We heard the Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner. The issue as to the sewing thread manufactured by the respondent is different from the cotton yarn, a declared goods as per entry 3 of the Second Schedule to the TNGST Act or not has been considered by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Popular Thread Factory v. Commercial Tax Officer, Rattan Bazaar Assessment Circle, Chennai [2001] 124 STC 569, and the Division Bench of this court has held as follows : "2. The decisions of this court are to be found in State of Tamil Nadu v. R.V. Krishniah Chetty and Sons [1994] 92 STC 262 (Mad) and State of Tamil Nadu v. R.V. Krishniah Chetty and Sons [1990] 78 STC 422 (Mad). Both these decisions were rendered by a Bench comprising of Mr. Justice Venkataswami and Mr. Justice Raju (as they then were). The Government was very much a party to those judgments. We are informed that those judgments have become final, as no appeal having been preferred against the same. The Tribunal in this case has chosen to ignore those judgments and has held that the sewing thread sold by the assessee is liable to tax under entry 141 in the First Schedule and does not enjoy the protection of being declared goods. The Tribunal in this case has chosen to ignore those judgments and has held that the sewing thread sold by the assessee is liable to tax under entry 141 in the First Schedule and does not enjoy the protection of being declared goods. The Tribunal has also held that the sewing thread sold by the assessee is not cotton yarn. We find it difficult to approve the view taken by the Tribunal, which has failed to take note of and apply the law declared by this court to whose jurisdictional supervision the Tribunal is subject. 3. The activity of the assessee, as accepted by the Revenue is only to purchase the cotton yarn. It does not do anything more in relation thereto thereafter, except to dye it, put it into spools and sell it under its own name as sewing thread. 4. As held by this court in State of Tamil Nadu v. R.V. Krishniah Chetty and Sons [1994] 92 STC 262 (Mad), sewing thread does not lose its character as cotton yarn because it is used as sewing thread. 5. The court held in the decision reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. R.V. Krishniah Chetty and Sons [1990] 78 STC 422 (Mad), that sewing thread does not lose its character as cotton yarn and continues to retain its identity and character as cotton yarn notwithstanding the fact that they are sold for being used as sewing thread. The court observed thus : 'In our view, sewing thread is not different from cotton yarn and they are one and the same commodity ...' 6. The fact that the assessee adds colour to the yarn by itself does not make it any less cotton yarn. The Tribunal was wholly in error in holding that sewing thread is not cotton yarn and that the assessee can be subjected to tax by treating such sewing thread as not being declared goods. The impugned order of the Tribunal is, therefore, set aside and the writ petition is allowed." Hence, the issue in the present case is already covered by holding that the cotton thread manufactured by the assessee is still a declared goods and not different from the cotton yarn and are one and the same commodity. Hence, the tax case is dismissed.