JUDGMENT K. K. Sasidharan J. - These three revision petitions have been preferred by the Sales Tax Department challenging the order dated July 30, 1999 in T.A. Nos. 418, 419, 420 of 1995 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The following are the substantial questions of law raised for our consideration : "1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding guarded rubber sheets sold by the respondent is natural rubber latex falling under entry 74 of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act, 1959 ? 2. Whether the Tribunal has failed to follow the decision of this honourable court in Okay Rubber Corporation v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [1984] 55 STC 247 which has held that raw rubber sheets are not latex ? 3. Whether the Tribunal ought not to have relied upon the decision of the apex court in Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd. v. Cantreads Pvt. Ltd. reported in [1994] 95 STC 561 wherein the limited question dealt with was whether rubber sheets produced out of rubber latex could still be treated as "forest produce" as defined under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 ? 4. Whether the Tribunal has overlooked the observation of the apex court in the said decision that the test of common parlance as applicable to sales tax law cannot be applied in that case ?" Since the facts are identical in all the revision petitions, the facts of the case in T.C. (R) No. 1346 of 2006 are taken as the lead case. The assessee, State Trading Corporation of India, was originally assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 8,45,24,140 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act with respect to the assessment year 1978-79 as per assessment order dated December 31, 1980. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened and the turnover was re-fixed at Rs. 8,21,00,250.81 as per proceedings dated September 14, 1982. The assessing officer came to a conclusion that the goods sold by the assessee were rubber products which would fall under entry 126 of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act and accordingly, assessment was revised by holding that the goods fall under the category of general goods taxable under section 3(1) of the TNGST Act. The said order was taken up in statutory appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The said order was taken up in statutory appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Before the appellate authority, the assessee contended that the goods in question would fall only under entry 74 of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act. However, the appellate authority was of the opinion that the rubber would only be in milky liquid form or in the form of paste where preservatives and additives are mixed and as such, raw rubber, meaning thereby, latex and natural rubber cannot be transported unless they are packed in tins or glass containers and they also cannot be carried or transported without such packing. The appellate authority was also of the opinion that RMA rubber sheets can be folded, carried and transported without containers by bundling them up or by wrapping them in card boxes. Similarly, the appellate authority also opined that the latex rubber which is either raw or natural rubber is packed only in drums or containers and sold in litre quantity basis whereas RMA rubber sheets and other grades of rubber sheets are sold only in kgms. weight basis and came to the conclusion that the goods imported by the assessee would fall under the category of items included under entry 126 of the First Schedule and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of statutory appeal, the assessee preferred a further appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal on verification of the bills raised by foreign countries in favour of the assessee found that the goods have been described as either natural or raw rubber. The Tribunal also observed that it was not the case of the Department that the assessee by importing raw rubber converted them into various products and marketed the same. The Tribunal verified the records and found from the invoices issued by Malaysian Rubber Development Corporation that what was sold to the assessee was only crude natural rubber. Various other bills were also referred to by the Tribunal and all those bills indicated that what was imported was only raw rubber. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that what was imported by the assessee was only raw rubber, thereby accepting the contention of the assessee. Analysis : The entry at the relevant point was 74 which dealt with raw rubber which is known as latex. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that what was imported by the assessee was only raw rubber, thereby accepting the contention of the assessee. Analysis : The entry at the relevant point was 74 which dealt with raw rubber which is known as latex. Import voucher produced by the assessee showed that the goods imported by them were all natural rubber. Claim of the assessee was negatived by the assessing officer as well as by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the ground that what was sold was only rubber sheets and as such, entry 74 was not applicable to the transaction. Originally, the assessment was completed by the assessing officer accepting the returns filed by the assessee. It was only thereafter, proceedings were taken to revise the assessment, treating the goods sold by the assessee as rubber products falling under entry 126 of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act. Even though the assessee has contended that the goods sold by them fall under entry 74 of the First Schedule and as such, it was taxable only at the hands of the last purchaser, the same was not accepted by the assessing officer as well as by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. According to the Revenue, the raw rubber would only be in liquid form. The said finding is basically wrong. Natural rubber, otherwise called as latex, is a milky substance. Rubber is harvested by making a hole in the rubber trees, by the process of tapping. In order to collect rubber in milky form, suitable containers of the standard size would be attached to the tree. This milky substance has to be processed without any further delay as the chances for bacterial action on rubber products is high on account of contamination. Therefore, the milky substance is converted into sheets for marketing. In view of this process, it cannot be said that rubber is found always in liquid form and rubber sheet is altogether a different commodity. Therefore, the milky substance is converted into sheets for marketing. In view of this process, it cannot be said that rubber is found always in liquid form and rubber sheet is altogether a different commodity. In fact, the Tribunal also recorded a factual finding with regard to the classification of rubber thus : "Moreover, at the time of hearing of the appeals the learned State Representative sought time to get specification from the Rubber Board and later produced a letter of the Rubber Board containing classification item II 'sheet rubbers' have been explained as follows : 'Sheet rubber is the common marketable form of latex. The field latex obtained is made dirt-free and is coagulated by adding coagulating agent and squeezed through rollers to form sheet shapes. The sheets are ribbed and dried. The dried sheets are carefully inspected and graded as per specifications. The prevailing quality grades are RSS-IX, RSS-I, RSS-2, RSS-3, RSS-4 and RSS-5. The sheets after grading are packed in bales of 50 kgs. and made available for marketing'." The honourable Supreme Court in Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd. v. Cantreads Pvt. Ltd. [1994] 95 STC 561 (SC), held that rubber sheets and various grades obtained by hardening latex with acid and dried with smoke continue to be rubber and observed thus : "Latex is the modern name for caoutchouc. It is nothing but natural rubber. Caoutchouc or latex means not only the milky substance obtained from the trees but it included all milk substance processed, till it is made marketable. Since the processing does not result in bringing out a new commodity but it preserves the same and renders it fit for being marketed, it does not change its character. It was caoutchouc or latex when it was obtained from the trees, it continued to be caoutchouc or latex when it was treated by sulphuric acid and continued to be so even after it is dried with smoke to obtain the shape of sheets." It was not the case of the sales tax authorities that the rubber sheets were converted into any other products so as to take the commodity out of entry 74 of the First Schedule. In fact, all the bills produced by the assessee and found mentioned in the order of the Tribunal clearly establish that what was sold by the assessee was only crude natural rubber. In fact, all the bills produced by the assessee and found mentioned in the order of the Tribunal clearly establish that what was sold by the assessee was only crude natural rubber. It was only on the basis of the materials available that the Tribunal came to a factual finding that what was imported by the assessee was nothing but natural rubber. No other materials were produced by the Revenue to take a different stand. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the issue was correctly decided by the Tribunal and no interference is called for in the said order. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law raised are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The revision petitions are dismissed. No costs.