JUDGMENT : C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. The connected six Tax Revision cases, of which, 3 filed by the Department and the other 3 filed by the assessee, pertain to the rate of sales tax in respect of five products of the assessee. The assessments involved are those under the K.G.S.T. Act for the assessment years 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. We have heard Government Pleader appearing for the State and the counsel appearing for the assessee. 2. Assessee is a multi national company engaged in marketing of a whole range of new generation products, the kind of which are generally not available in the market. From the labels found on the products produced by the assessee before this Court it is clear that, the assessee does not want to reveal the details of the contents of the products and what is highlighted is only the use and purpose of the products. In fact the controversy is on the classification of the products and its rate of tax. Since the products involved are different, we proceed to decide the classification and rate of tax applicable to each of the items which are the following: i. Nylon Body Sponge : The sample of the item produced in court shows that it is a sponge knitted Nylon product which is used for bathing. When used along with soap it helps easy removal of dirt from human body. The case of the assessee is that it is not an item covered by any specific Entry in the First Schedule of the Act and so much so, it should be assessed under residuary Entry. However, the assessing officer was of the view that it is an item of plastic falling under Entry 113 of the First Schedule to the K.G.S.T. Act taxable at the rate of 12% as against 8% claimed for items assessable under the residuary Entry. While Government Pleader supported the order of assessment, counsel for the assessee referred to Entry Nos. 99 and 146 of the First Schedule, where Nylon items are separately referred to and pointed out that the Legislature was aware of Nylon and products of Nylon and so much so, the Legislature did not intend to cover Nylon products along with plastic items under Entry 113 of the First Schedule to the Act. 99 and 146 of the First Schedule, where Nylon items are separately referred to and pointed out that the Legislature was aware of Nylon and products of Nylon and so much so, the Legislature did not intend to cover Nylon products along with plastic items under Entry 113 of the First Schedule to the Act. We are inclined to accept the contention of the assessee because Entry 113 provides for rate of tax on plastic and articles of plastic including PVC pipes, plastic paper, cellophane, polythene, polyurethane, polythelene, polyster, whether expanded or not, polysterene formatted sheet, sun control polyster film, polyster tracing and drafting film, polyster self adhesive insulation tapes, fibre reinforced plastics not coming under any other entry in this Schedule or in the fifth Schedule. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of this Court reported in Importex International Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala 81 STC 351) wherein this Court has held that though plastic and Nylon have same chemical base, in commercial field, nylon products have separate identity and use and therefore those items cannot be treated as plastic products. 3. We notice that all the items of plastic covered by the Entry specified therein and the residuary clause refers to only fibre reinforced plastic which assessee’s product is not. Since it is a knitted nylon fibre in bunch form used as a scrubber in bathing, it is not covered by Entry 113 of the First Schedule which provides for plastic and similar items referred above. Since there is no other Entry covering this item, we hold that the item is rightly found to be assessable under residuary Entry at 8% as ordered by the Tribunal. We, therefore, uphold the order of the Tribunal and reject the Revision Petition filed by the State on this issue. ii. Buff-up Creme :- 4. The product description of this by the assessee in the label is furniture creme with lemon oil. It is further stated in the bottle that the Buff-up creme cleans and removes dust, finger marks and its use gives a gloss. The thick, rich formula rejuvenates furniture by healing minor nicks and scratches. Natural luster is restored to finished wood which has become dull and dry from excessive heat or humidity. It is further stated in the bottle that the Buff-up creme cleans and removes dust, finger marks and its use gives a gloss. The thick, rich formula rejuvenates furniture by healing minor nicks and scratches. Natural luster is restored to finished wood which has become dull and dry from excessive heat or humidity. Here again the assessee’s case is that, the item is not covered by any specific entry in the First Schedule and hence assessable at 8% under residuary Entry. However, the assessing officer noticed that this is an item squarely falling under Entry 103 of the First Schedule to the K.G.S.T. Act, which provides tax at 15% on paints, colours, laquers, varnishes, pigments, polishes, indigo, dyes, enamel, putty, baleoil, turpentine oil, wood preservation oil, primers and thinners. We notice that many items referred herein like polishes, wood preservation oil etc., are items of general nature which are capable of preserving and polishing the surface of wood. It is clear from the product description and its use that the purpose is to give gloss and polish to the furniture that is lost on account of use or other house hold soils. When the assesses itself names that the purpose is to give look and restore gloss and shining for wood furniture, the item necessarily should be treated as a polish or wood preservation oil. Further, lemon oil is admittedly one of the contents of the product which is in cream form and so much so, we are of the view that, the item squarely falls under Entry 103 of the First Schedule to the K.G.S.T. Act, which covers all kind of polishes, varnishes and other wood protecting, preserving and polishing materials used for polishing furniture. Even though counsel for the assessee relied on the Division Bench judgment of this court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M. Koyakutty (89 STC 176), we do not think the said decision applies herein because, this Court was only considering whether shoe polish is a polish or not. We do not know in what context or what type of shoe polish, this Court said is not capable of imparting colour or gloss. In any case, since assessee’s product is only a cream used to polish furniture, we do not think the above decision will help them. We do not know in what context or what type of shoe polish, this Court said is not capable of imparting colour or gloss. In any case, since assessee’s product is only a cream used to polish furniture, we do not think the above decision will help them. We uphold the order of the Tribunal confirming assessment under Entry 103 of the First Schedule to the K.G.S.T. Act. Hence, the Revision Petition filed by the assessee on this issue is dismissed. iii. Siberian Ginseng with Ginkgo Biloba: This is an item in tablet form and sold in sealed bottles. A bottle of 100 tablets costs Rs.2,369/-. The product description is proprietary food-health supplement. Ingredients as stated are natural herb such as Ginseng of Siberian origin, Ginkgo Biloba, Schizandra Berry, Citrus Bioflavonoid, Peppermint along with Dextrose, Yeast, Microcrystalline cellulose, Maltodextrin, Cellulose, Magnesium Stearate, methyl Cellulose, Silicon Dioxide, Glycerin, Hydrogenated Cottonseed Oil. We are of the view that this is a herbal product and assessee has described it as a health supplement, probably to avoid treating it as a medicine. The assessee originally claimed this as an item falling under Entry 62 of the First Schedule taxable at the rate of 12% which provides for rate of tax on food including vegetative or animal preparations sold in airtight containers and food colours, essences of all kinds and powders or tablets used for making food preparations. Department’s case is that the item is assessable under Entry 141 taxable at the rate of 20% which provides for tax on squashes, sauces, fruit juices, fruit pulp, soda, mineral water, Horlicks, Boost, Bournvita, Complan, Glucose D, Glucovita and similar other items whether or not bottled, canned or packed. In the course of proceedings before lower authorities the assessee alternately contended that items if not falling under Entry 62 will be covered by residuary Entry taxable only at 8%. Government Pleader contended that the item falls under the residuary clause “similar other items” referred to in Entry 141. Assessee’s counsel contended that the item is no way comparable with any of the items in Entry 141 and so much so, it cannot be treated as a product similar to any item covered therein. Government Pleader contended that the item falls under the residuary clause “similar other items” referred to in Entry 141. Assessee’s counsel contended that the item is no way comparable with any of the items in Entry 141 and so much so, it cannot be treated as a product similar to any item covered therein. Counsel for the assessee relied on the literal meaning of ‘similar’ and also the decision of Supreme Court reported in State of Orissa v. State of A.P.( (2006) 9 SCC 591 ) and contended that ‘similar’ should apply in all respects and not just any kind of similarity of the product. The judgment referred will show that in order to cover an item as similar to others, it should be almost alike to the other one. It is clear from Entry 141, particularly from the explanation that, most of the items referred to therein are beverages or items used to make beverages which is a drink. It is further to be noted that essential ingredient of most items like Horlicks, Complan etc., is solid milk. Further all the items are essential food items covered by Entry 141 and are essentially meant for children, whereas in the product cover of these products there is prohibition against use by children below age 12. Obviously and even according to the claim of the assessee, the product is a rejuvenating one for people in their middle age and old age and as already observed, it is nothing but a herb which has probably medicinal values. Instead of making it as medicinal product, the company has chosen to market it as a health supplement. It is common knowledge that products with Ginseng as the major ingredient are marketed by Chinese and Korean companies as rejuvenating items. We therefore hold that the item is to be classified either as ayurvedic or herbal product which is medicine under Entry 87 or as a food supplement under Entry 62. Since it is not made as a drug or medicine, it has to be necessarily classified as food supplement, which is covered by Entry 62. We, therefore, hold that the claim of the Department that the item is covered by Entry 141 is not tenable but at the same time we disagree with the view expressed by the Tribunal that the item is not covered by Entry 62. We, therefore, hold that the claim of the Department that the item is covered by Entry 141 is not tenable but at the same time we disagree with the view expressed by the Tribunal that the item is not covered by Entry 62. In our view, it is a food supplement covered by Entry 62 taxable at the rate of 12% as initially claimed by the assessee. We therefore, allow the Revision Petition filed by the State by reversing the order of the Tribunal with direction to assess the product under Entry 62 taxable at 12% as against the original assessment completed under Entry 141 at 20%. iv. Glucosamine HCI with Boswellia: Here again the product is described as proprietary food-dietary supplement. Boswellia one of the ingredients is an ayurvedic herb. Even though Government Pleader submitted that Glucosamine is similar to the Glucone D or Glucovita which falls under Entry 141, we are unable to accept this contention because the item sold is in capsule form as a rejuvenating and restoring agent. Our findings on Siberian Ginseng squarely applies here also. Therefore, we hold that the item is assessable under Entry 62 as against the assessment under Entry 141 by the assessing officer. We therefore allows the Revision Petition filed by the State by reversing the order of the Tribunal and by directing the assessing officer to revise the assessment of the product under Entry 62 at the rate of 12%. v. APSA - 80: This is described in the label cover as All Purpose Spray Adjuvant Concentrate for plants and crops. Counsel for the assessee has furnished a leaflet which shows that the item is a liquid used as a spreader with herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, foliar fertilizer and other plant protection chemicals and fertilizer for application on plants. It is nothing but a spreader in liquid form. On examining the contents we notice that it is a thin liquid which when used along with herbicides, fertilizer etc. helps easy spreading. Strangely, the contents have not been disclosed in the bottle cover or in the leaflet. It is nothing but a spreader in liquid form. On examining the contents we notice that it is a thin liquid which when used along with herbicides, fertilizer etc. helps easy spreading. Strangely, the contents have not been disclosed in the bottle cover or in the leaflet. However, in the affidavit filed by the assessee before the Tribunal, they conceded that it is a chemical mixture and so much so the Tribunal has held that the item is assessable under Entry 33 which covers chemicals including caustic soda, caustic potash, sodaash sodium sulphate, sodium silicate, sulphur, chemical components and mixtures not elsewhere mentioned in this Schedule. Even though the counsel for the assessee contended that it is not a chemical and chemicals referred to in the Entry are basic chemicals produced in lab or used for laboratory purposes, we are unable to accept this contention, because the assessee itself conceded that the product is a mixture of chemical. Assessee does not even concede that the product is of water base or oil base to achieve the purpose. It has to be necessarily a combination of chemicals and the item to act as a spreader along with pesticides, fungicides etc., should be soluble in water for application along with such items. Government pleader obtained product description of the item from inter net, which gives the chemical name of the product as ‘Poly (oxy 1, 2 - ethanediyl), alpha- (nonylphenyl)-omega-hydroxy’. In view of the admission by the assessee before the Tribunal that the item is a chemical mixture, we are unable to uphold the present contention of the assessee that it is not a chemical. In fact, all chemical components and mixtures not elsewhere specified in the schedule are covered by Entry 33. In view of this Entry covering all chemical components and mixtures, there is no scope for assessing any chemical or composition of chemicals in residuary entry as claimed by the assessee. Even though the assessee has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. Modern Proteins Ltd. (1994 Supp (2) SCC 496); State of Tamil Nadu v. Indian Evelets Industries(Madras) (55 STC 354) and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Agrawal Agencies (45 STC 455) and contended that the product cannot be treated as chemical, we are unable to accept the contention because mixtures of chemicals not elsewhere mentioned are covered by Entry 33. We therefore hold that APSA-80 is nothing but a chemical, which is assessable under Entry 33 of the First Schedule at 12%, We therefore reject the revision petition filed by the assessee. All Tax Revision Cases are disposed of as above.