Judgment :- 1. The Revenue is questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment and order dated 17.08.2006 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in STA 1674 to 1677/2004. 2. The above revision petition has been admitted by this court on 21.01.2008. In view of the revision petition having being admitted it is noticed by us that question of law had not been formulated at the time of admission. It is agreed to by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent that non-formulating of the question on law at the time of admission is due to over sight and submit that question of law formulated in the revision petition may be taken up as question of law which arises for consideration. The said question of law as formulated in the revision petition which arises for consideration reads as under: “Question of law In the facts and circumstances of the case. Whether the tribunal is justified in holding that Metallic Gas Cylinders are not exigible to levy of entry tax as packing materials falling under the notification dated 23.09.1998?” 3. The brief facts are as follows: The respondent is a registered dealer under the provisions of The Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979, (hereinafter referred to as KTEG Act for brevity). The respondent is engaged in the business of filling Liquid petroleum Gas (LPG) in metallic gas cylinder and supplying the same to its customers. The assessing authority for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 had levied entry tax on the value of metallic Gas Cylinders on entry into local areas by his respective assessment orders. The assessee being aggrieved by the said assessment orders preferred appeals before the First Appellate Authority, who remanded the matter to the assessing authority for fresh adjudication. The assessee filed further appeals before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and by order dated 30.07.2003 tribunal dismissed the appeals of the assessee and upheld the order of the First Appellate Authority of Remand. 4. There afterwards, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, i.e., Assistant Commissioner issued show cause notice to the assessee and the assessee filed its objections to the show cause notice. On considering the said reply the assessing authority passed orders afresh on 16.01.2004 levying Entry tax on causing entry of Metallic Gas Cylinders into local area. 5. 4. There afterwards, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, i.e., Assistant Commissioner issued show cause notice to the assessee and the assessee filed its objections to the show cause notice. On considering the said reply the assessing authority passed orders afresh on 16.01.2004 levying Entry tax on causing entry of Metallic Gas Cylinders into local area. 5. Aggrieved by the said assessment orders, the assessee filed further appeals before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). City Division III, Bangalore in KTEG AP: 95 to 98 / 03-04/ 94-95–97-98 under section 13 (5) of the KTEG Act, 1979. The First Appellate Authority on considering the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and after hearing the arguments of the assessee dismissed the appeals by order dated 23.03.2004. 6. Aggrieved by the same assessee filed further appeals before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in STA 1674 to 1677/2004 under Section 14(1) of the KTEG Act. The Tribunal on considering the plea advanced by the assessee accepted the same and by its order dated 17.08.2006 allowed the appeals filed by assessee. It is this order, which is now assailed in the present revision petition by the revenue raising the question of law formulated herein above. 7. We have heard Smt. Geetha Menon, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-revenue and Sri M.N Shankare Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent assessee. 8. Smt, Geetha Menon would submit that Sec.3 (1) of KTEG Act is the charging Section and it provides for levy and collection of tax on entry of any goods specified in first schedule brought into a local area for consumption, entry tax not exceeding 5% of the a value of goods can be levied and collected by the state Government which may be specified in the notification either retrospectively or prospectively. She would submit goods have been specified in first schedule and relevant entry applicable to LPG cylinder according to state would be entry 66 which defines and includes “packing materials” and she would submit that percentage of tax to be levied was specified in 2 notifications namely 07.01.1998 and 23.09.1998. She would elaborate her submission by contending that LPG Cylinders are packing material for filling the gas into cylinders and as such levy of tax on entry of cylinders into local area attract tax @ 2% and submits that state is fully justified in levying the same. She would elaborate her submission by contending that LPG Cylinders are packing material for filling the gas into cylinders and as such levy of tax on entry of cylinders into local area attract tax @ 2% and submits that state is fully justified in levying the same. She would contend that words used are steel drums in the entry and submitted that Metallic Gas Cylinders are also containers made of steel. She would submit that looking at the language employed in entry ‘66’it is abundantly clear that LPG Cylinders which are manufacture out of steel plates, are very much covered under the said entry. Hence she contends that LPG cylinders are taxable at the rate of 2%. Drawing our attention to the words used “and the like”, she would contend, packing materials on different metals and materials will have to go separately with the description of each item. She would contend, cylinders are basically containers which are in the nature of specifically designed drums to fill gas and falling under Entry 3 (ii) of the notification dated 23.09.1998 and Metallic Gas Cylinders are packing materials which are exigible to levy of entry tax. Hence, she contends that without appreciating these facts, the Tribunal has proceeded to hold that Metallic Gas Cylinders are not exigible to tax. In support of her contentions she would rely upon the following decisions: (i) 119 (2000) STC 112 Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited Vs. State of Karnataka. (ii) 119 (2000) STC 117 Konaria Industries LTD Vs. State of Karnataka 9. Per contra Sri .M.N.Shankare Gowda. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent assessee would contend that Metallic Gas Cylinder is not a packing material and as such it would not be exigible to tax under Entry.No.3 (ii) of the notification dated 23-9-1998. He would contend that under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act schedule the II part ‘C’ Entry 22 containers have been defined separately and independently and hence Metallic Gas Cylinders cannot be brought under “Packing Materials”. He would Further elaborate his submission that Metallic Gas Cylinder has been assigned separate entry under Karnataka Sales Tax Act namely 22 (vii) and it does not come under Entry 22(ii) of KST Act Where under containers have been defined as : “22. He would Further elaborate his submission that Metallic Gas Cylinder has been assigned separate entry under Karnataka Sales Tax Act namely 22 (vii) and it does not come under Entry 22(ii) of KST Act Where under containers have been defined as : “22. Containers, that is to say (i) ----- (ii) Tin plate containers (cans and boxes), Steel and aluminium drums and crates, aluminium tubes and collapsible tubes.” He would contend that by having 2 separate entries under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, the intention of the legislature was to distinguish metallic gas cylinders independently of the drums referred to in Entry 22 (ii) of the KST Act which is analogous to Entry 3 (ii) of the KTEG Act and thus the metallic gas cylinder cannot be brought under this Entry or within the sweep of the words “and the like” used in Entry 3(ii) of the KTEG Act. Elaborating his submissions he would also contend that under the KTEG Act Section 2 (B) it has been specifically provided that when expression used in the KTEG Act has not been defined under the said Act., it would have the meaning assigned to them in the KST Act. 1957and as such he contends that when the KST Act, 1957 provides for separate Entry of Metallic Gas Cylinders, same cannot be brought to tax under Entry 66 r/w entry 3(ii) of the notification issued under KTEG Act by brining within the words “and the like” used in KTEG Act,. In support of his submission he would rely upon the decision of the “Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1981 SC 2101 Rain bow Steels Ltd., and another Vs. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. And another and the decision in AIR 1989 SC 1019 M/s. Siddeshwari cotton mills (P)Ltd., Appellant v. Union of India and another, to contend that principle of ejusdem generis has to be applied and when so applied the Metallic Gas Cylinder would go outside the scope of KTEG Act and thus not exigible to tax. He would contend that Metallic Gas Cylinder entry cannot be traced to genus founds in entry 66 of first schedule r/w entry 3(ii) of Notification dated 28.03.1998 since it is a separate class and the attempt of the revenue to bring it within the category of steel drums or under the category “and the like” is erroneous. He would contend that Metallic Gas Cylinder entry cannot be traced to genus founds in entry 66 of first schedule r/w entry 3(ii) of Notification dated 28.03.1998 since it is a separate class and the attempt of the revenue to bring it within the category of steel drums or under the category “and the like” is erroneous. He would contend that in the instant case the word “packing material” is the genus and the species are tin sheets, alluminium foils, alluminium tubes, Collapsible tubes aluminum or steel drums, barrels and crates and the like. The commodity metallic gas cylinder would not come in any of these species and hence by applying the principle of ejusdem generis the metallic gas cylinder is to be held not exigible to levy under KTEG Act. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties the question of law formulated herein above is required to be answered: 11. In order to appreciate the rival contention urged it would be necessary to extract the relevant provision of the Act, entries in KTEG Act and the notifications which has been pressed into service. The charging Section in KTEG Act is Section 3 and same reads as under. LEVY OF TAX 3. Levy of tax : [ ( 1 ) There shall be levied and collected a tax on [entry of any goods specified in the FIRST SCHEDULE] into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein, at such rates not exceeding five per cent of the value of the goods as may be specified [retrospectively or prospectively by the state Government by notification and different dates] and different rates may be specified in respect of different goods or different classes of goods or different local areas:] [Provided ……….. goods.] [Provided that no tax shall be payable on cast iron castings when used as raw material, component part or any other input which may be sued in the manufacture of an intermediate finished goods.] (2) The tax levied under sub-section (I) shall be paid by every registered dealer or a dealer liable to get himself registered under this Act [or the Central Government or a State Government other than the State Government of Karnataka] who brings or causes to be brought into a local area the goods whether on his own account or on account of his principal or any other person or who takes delivery or is entitled to take delivery of such goods on its entry into a local area. Explanation: Where …………. the local area. [(3) Notwithstanding ………….any goods- (i) in respect of ………… sub – section (l). or (ii) [other than Gutkha] in respect ………………… (Karnataka Act No.22 of 1979). [(4) The provisions ………….as the case may be.] Rule : 9-E, Form : 40 [(4-A) Notwithstanding ………………. Selling Dealer.] Rule : 9-AAA, Form : 40-A (5) Where …………. Section 28-A. (6) No …………..sale therein. [(6-A) No …………..Related goods.] [(7) Every manufacture who brings or causes to be brought any goods into a local area or every dealer who brings or causes to be brought any goods into the State, the aggregate value of which is less than one lakh rupees in a year and any other dealer who brings or causes to be brought any goods into a local area, the aggregate value of which is less than two lakh rupees, shall not be liable to pay tax for that year:] Provided that every non resident dealer including his agent or manager, or every occasional dealer shall be liable to pay the tax each year at the rates specified irrespective of the aggregate value of the goods brought or caused to be brought into the local area during the year. (8) The tax shall be assessed, levied and collected in such manner and in such installments, if any, as may be prescribed. (9) Subject to such rules as may be prescribed the assessing authority may assess a dealer for any year, as if, the aggregate value of the goods brought or caused to be brought into local area in such year had been received as in the previous year.] 12. (9) Subject to such rules as may be prescribed the assessing authority may assess a dealer for any year, as if, the aggregate value of the goods brought or caused to be brought into local area in such year had been received as in the previous year.] 12. The goods on which tax can be levied and collected are specified in First Schedule and relevant Entry for purposes of determining the issue in question would be Entry 66 and same reads as under. FIRST SCHEDULE [See Section 3(I)] Sl.No. Description of goods 1 2 1 X X X X 2 X X X X 3 X X X X 4-65 X X X X 66 Packing materials namely: (i) X X X X and the like: (ii) Tin plate containers (cans, tins and boxes), tin sheets, aluminium foil, aluminium tubes, collapsible tubes, aluminium or steel drums, barrels and crates and the like; 13. The percentage of levy namely rate of tax came to be specified by the State by issue of notification. In so far as Entry 66 – pertaining to packing materials Notification No.FD 214 CET 97 Bangalore, dated 7th January, 1998, published in Karnataka Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 07.01.1998 came to be issued and same reads as under. NOTIFICATION No, FD 214 CET 97, Bangalore, dated 7th January, 1998 Karnataka Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 7-1-1998 In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) Section 3 of Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act.1979 (Karnataka Act 27 of 1979), the Government of Karnataka hereby specify that with immediate effect tax shall be levied and collected under the said Act on the Entry of Goods specified in column (2) of the table below into a local area for consumption. use or sale therein, at the rates specified in the corresponding entries in column (3) thereof: SI. No. Commodity Rate of Tax (1) (2) (3) 1 X X X X 2 X X X X 3 Packing materials namely: (i) Fibre board cases, paper boxes, folding cartons, paper bags, carrier bags and card boards. Corrugated board boxes and the like 2% (ii) Tin plate containers (cans, tins and boxes).aluminium foil, aluminium tubes, collapsible tube, aluminium or steel drums. barrels and crates and the like 2% 14. Corrugated board boxes and the like 2% (ii) Tin plate containers (cans, tins and boxes).aluminium foil, aluminium tubes, collapsible tube, aluminium or steel drums. barrels and crates and the like 2% 14. The commodity “tin - sheets” was inserted by virtue of another notification No. FD 173 LET 98, Bangalore, dated 23rd September, 1998 under the Entry of packing material and same reads as under. NOTIFICATION No.FD 179 CET 98, Bangalore, dated 23rd September, 1998 In exercise of the powers conferred by, sub-section (1) Section 3 of Karnataka Tax on Entry of goods Act, 1979 (Karnataka Act 27 of 1979), the Government of Karnataka hereby specify that with effect from the first day of April, 1994 and upto 6th day of January, 1998 tax shall be levied and collected under the said Act on the Entry of Goods specified in column (2) of the tale below into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein. at the rates specified in the corresponding entries in column (3) thereof: SI.No Commodity Rate of tax (1) (2) (3) 1 X X X X 2 X X X X 3 Packing material namely: (i) XXXX and the like: (ii) tin plate containers (cans, tins and boxes). tin sheets, aluminium foil, aluminium tubes, Collapsible tubes, aluminium or steel drums, barrels and crates and the like 2% 15. By perusal of the above provisions it emanates that packing materials serves the purpose of keeping the materials in an organized manner, making easy for transportation form place to place and ensures safety of the goods when it is packed. The word ‘pack’ as per the definition of Law Lexicon Second Edition (Reprint) reads as under: “‘Pack’: to place together and prepare for transportation: to put goods in a box, or clothing in a bundle. The terms ‘to Pack’ in its ordinary signification, especially when used in reference to carriage, means to place together and prepare for transportation, as to make up a bundle. or bale.” In effect it means a container in which goods may be found and it is usually referred in ordinary parlance to means to place together the things. prepare for transportation so that the goods can be used by the user, Thus, packing material of any kind which serves this purpose will continue to be a packing material. or bale.” In effect it means a container in which goods may be found and it is usually referred in ordinary parlance to means to place together the things. prepare for transportation so that the goods can be used by the user, Thus, packing material of any kind which serves this purpose will continue to be a packing material. In the instant case it is the Metallic Gas Cylinders which are used for packing the liquid purified gas into it. The words packing materials are wide enough include any kind of material used for packing of the goods. Thus, the Metallic Gas Cylinders would be in the nature of packing material which serves the purpose of packing and storage of L.P.G. 16. The two judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent assessee and the principles enunciated thereunder are as follows; In the case of M/s. Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., Appellant v. Union of India and another, AIR 1989 SC 1019 “7. The expression ejusdem generis - ‘of the same kind or nature’ – signifies a principle of construction whereby words in a statute which are otherwise wide but are associated in the text with more limited words are, by implication, given a restricted operation and are limited to matters of the same class or genus as preceding them. If a list or string or family of genus-describing terms are followed by wider or residuary or sweeping-up words, then the verbal context and the linguistic implications of the preceding words limit the scope of such words. In ‘Statutory Interpretation’ Rupert Cross Says: “……….. The draftsman must be taken to have inserted the general words in case something which ought to have been included among the specifically enumerated items had been omitted………….,” The principle underlying this approach to statutory construction is that the statutory construction is that the subsequent general words were only intended to guard against some accidental omission in the objects of the kind mentioned earlier and were not intended to extend to objects of a wholly different kind. This is a presumption and operates unless there is some contrary indication. But the preceding words or expressions of restricted meaning must be susceptible of the import that they represent a class. This is a presumption and operates unless there is some contrary indication. But the preceding words or expressions of restricted meaning must be susceptible of the import that they represent a class. If no class can be found, ejusdem generis rule is not attracted and such broad construction as the subsequent words may admit will favoured As a learned author puts it: ”… If a class can be found, but the specific words exhaust the class. then rejection of the rule may be favoured because its adoption would make the general words unnecessary: however, the specific words do not exhaust the class. Then adoption of the rule may be favoured because its rejection would make the specific words unnecessary,” (See : Construction of Statutes by E.A. Driedger p., 95 quoted by Francis Bennion in his Statutory Construction Pages 829 and 830). Francis bennion in his statutory Construction Observed: “For the ejusdem generis principles to apply there must be a sufficient indication of a category that can properly be described as a class or genus, even though not specified as such in the enactment, Furthermore the genus must be narrower than the words it is said to regulate. The nature of the genus is gathered by implication form the express words which suggest it …. ” “It is necessary to be able to formulate the genus: for if it cannot be formulated it does not exist. ‘Unless you can find a category’, said Farwell LJ.’ there is no room for the application of the ejusdem generis doctrine’,” In SS.Magnhild (Owners) v. Melntyre Bros. And Co., [(1920 (3KB 32)] Mc Cardie J Said : “So far as I can see the only test seems to be whether the specified things which precede the general words can be places under some common category. And Co., [(1920 (3KB 32)] Mc Cardie J Said : “So far as I can see the only test seems to be whether the specified things which precede the general words can be places under some common category. By this I understand that the specified things must possess some common and dominant feature.” In Tribhuban Parkash Nayyar v. Union of India (1970) 2 SCR 732 : ( AIR 1970 SC 540 ) the Court said: “… This rule reflects an attempt to reconcile incompatibility between the specific and general words, in view of the other rules of interpretation, that all words in a statute are given effect if possible, that a statute is to be construed as a whole and that no words in a statute are presumed to be superfluous…” (p.740) (of SCR): (at p.545 of AIR) In U.P.S.E. Board v. Hari Shanker AIR 1979 SC 65 it was observed: “….. The true scope of the rule of “ejusdem generis” is that words of a general nature following specific and particular words should be construed as limited to things which are of the same nature as those specified. But the rule is one which has to be “applied with caution and not pushed too far”…..” 8. The preceding words in the statutory provision which Under this particular rule of construction. Control and limit the meaning of the subsequent words must represent a genus or a family which admits of a number of species or members. If there is only one species it cannot supply the idea of a genus. In the present case the expressions ‘bleaching, mercerizing, dyeing, printing , water proofing , rubberizing , shrink-proofing , organdie processing’ which precede the expression or any other process’ contemplate processes which impart a change of a lasting character to the fabric by either the addition of some chemical into the fabric of otherwise. ‘Any other process’ in the section must share one or the other of these incidents. The Expression “any other process” is used in the context of what constitutes manufacture in its extended meaning and the expression “unprocessed” in the exempting notification draws its meaning from that context. The appropriate by the Tribunal in this case appears to us to be unsupportable in the context in which the expression “or any other process” has to be understood.” In the case of Rain bow Steels Ltd., and another Vs. The appropriate by the Tribunal in this case appears to us to be unsupportable in the context in which the expression “or any other process” has to be understood.” In the case of Rain bow Steels Ltd., and another Vs. The commissioner of sales Tax, U.P. and another AIR 1981 SC 2101 “U.P. Sales Tax Act (15 of 1948). Section 3-A.Sch.I.CI.(b)- Notification No. ST. II.4949/X-10(2)-74, D/- 30-5-1975. Entry 15-word “old” occurring in Entry 15Interpretation of principle “noscitur a sociis” is applicable – Thermal Power Plant which had been used previously but is in perfect running condition at time of sale – Cannot be regarded as ‘old machinery’ Within meaning of Entry 15-Not exigible to sales tax. F.A.F.O. No. 39/77.D/- 18-4-1979 (ALL). Reversed. (Interpretation of Statutes-Meaning of words-Maxim-Noscitur a sociis). Where the Thermal Power Plant which had been used previously but was in perfect running condition at the time of sale and was sold as such, it would not be deemed to be “old machinery” within the meaning of Entry 15 of the Notification. and therefore. would not be exigible to sales tax. The word “old” occurs in Entry 15 associated with the words ‘discarded. Unserviceable or obsolete’ and therefore: the principle of ‘noscitur a sociis’ would applicable to construction of the word ‘old’ occurring in entry 15 and the expression would be given a restricted meaning a sense analogous to that of the less general words clubbed with it. AIR 1960 SC 610 , (1965) 1 QB 232, AIR 1960 SC 675 , Disting….” 17. In this back ground when the words Metallic Gas Cylinder is examined it is to be seen as to whether it would form either the genus or is referable to the species as enumerated in entry 66 of first schedule r/w entry 3(ii) of notification dated 23.09.1998. The words enumerated in entry 3(ii) reads as under: “Tin plate containers (cans, tins and boxes) tin sheets, aluminium foil, aluminium tubes, collapsible tubes, aluminium or steel drums, barrels and crates and the like” The words “Steel drums” “and the like” found in this Entry would be of relevance for the purpose of considering the rival contentions of the parties. It would be appropriate to extract the reply given to the show cause notice by the respondent assessee at this juncture. The same reads as under: 1. The LPG Metallic cylinders are manufactured out of steel plate. It would be appropriate to extract the reply given to the show cause notice by the respondent assessee at this juncture. The same reads as under: 1. The LPG Metallic cylinders are manufactured out of steel plate. but not drum or barrels. Therefore they cannot be covered under the entry stated in the notice. (Emphasis supplied by us) 2. Other oil companies like BPCL. IBPCL and HPCL payment of tax cannot be made a ground for levy of tax on this dealer. 3. The cylinders have a specific thickness to fill LPG under high pressure. Hence it cannot be considered as drums or barrels. 4. Under the KST Act 1957 the cylinders are classified as containers, but the same was not brought under the entry tax. 5. The cost of LPG was Rs.360/- but for the cylinders was Rs.850/-, Hence. Cylinder can not be considered as packing material. 6. Under the Companies Act and the Income Tax Act the cylinders are considered as fixed assets. This shows that cylinder was not a packing materials. 7. As per Rule 9-A of the Act cylinders are sent out of the local area otherwise than by way of sale. 18. The assessee itself has specifically admitted that Metallic Gas Cylinders are manufactured out of steel plates when the steel drums have been brought under Entry 3 (ii) the contention of the assessee that the Metallic Gas Cylinders are manufactured out of steel plates being accepted. the natural corollary would be that it would be referable to the species of steel drums. It is to be seen, as to whether the further words” and the like” used in Entry 3(ii) would also take within its sweep the Metallic Gas Cylinders. The words “and the like” was the subject matter of consideration by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Maharashtra Hybrid seeds Company Limited V. State of Karnataka Vol 119 2000 STC 112 , wherein it is held as follows: “12. In this case, we are concerned with the packing materials made out of jute and not any other material. Under clause (v) the packing materials made out of jute have been brought to tax. There are three items in entry (v): (a) gunny bags, (b) bardan (including batars) and (c) Hessian cloth. In this case, we are concerned with the packing materials made out of jute and not any other material. Under clause (v) the packing materials made out of jute have been brought to tax. There are three items in entry (v): (a) gunny bags, (b) bardan (including batars) and (c) Hessian cloth. Counsel for the parties are agreed that gunny bags and bardans (including batars) is made out of jute “Hessian” as per Shorter Oxford Dictionary means “strong coarse cloth of hemp or jute: sack-cloth.” In the same dictionary “hemp” means “plant from which coarse fibres are obtained for the manufacture of rope and cloth”. Thus all the three entries in clause (v) relate to fibre made out of jute. After these entries. the legislature has added the words “and the like” have been added at the end of entries. The words “and the like” will have to go with the description of the items in the clause and would not include an items which is not conceived in the entry. In clause (v). the intention is to subject to tax the packing materials made out of jute only and not out of any other material like cloth, polythene, etc. Jute is the basic fibre and the packing materials made out of jute only are subjected to tax. The expression “and the like” would require to be considered “ejusdem generis”. The genesis or the class of items envisaged by the preceding words not being exhaustive of the genesis or the class the Legislature has conceived the words ”and the like” so as to bring in any other item of the same class or genesis. In entry 16-A. broadly speaking, the packing materials of different metals and materials have been mentioned and the reference to the words “and the like” will have to go separately with the description in each items and would not go beyond that to any other item not conceived in such each sub-item. The reference in entry 16-A (v) is with reference to gunny bags, bardan (including batars). Hessiant cloth and the words “and the like” extending the principle of ejusdem generis would not conceive cotton cloth bags within that group to subject the petitioner to entry tax.” 19. The Scope of the word or a commodity or thing and the like is limited to the class or family or genus and the like as preceding them. Hessiant cloth and the words “and the like” extending the principle of ejusdem generis would not conceive cotton cloth bags within that group to subject the petitioner to entry tax.” 19. The Scope of the word or a commodity or thing and the like is limited to the class or family or genus and the like as preceding them. The goods classified in Entry 66 of first schedule r/w entry 3(ii) of notification dated 23.09.1998 relating to Metallic packing materials have similarity in the purpose of packing material mentioned in the said class of goods. When the principle of ‘ejusdem generis’ is applied the statutory construction is that subsequent general words are only intended to guard against some accidental omission in the objects of kind mentioned earlier and were not intended to extent to objects of wholly different kind. This is a presumption and operates unless there is contrary indication. If no class can be found, the principle of ‘ejusdem generis’ Would not be attracted and such broad construction as the subsequent words may admit will be favoured Thus, the Metallic Gas Cylinders gets fitted into Entry 66 of first schedule r/w entry 3(ii) of notification dated23.09.1998 as packing material. 20. The Courts in giving a meaning to the item contained in the schedule should attempt to give the meaning which the makers of the schedule intended by grouping various articles in a particular group considering them in a generic sense and a combined reading of words “Packing Material” and the words used in Entry 66 of first schedule r/w entry 3(ii) of notification dated 23.09.1998 would go to show the legislature intended to tax steel drums and like which would come within the meaning of packing materials. The liquid purified gas cannot be packed in any other manner other than a cylinder. Thus, the intention of the legislature is to tax Metallic Gas Cylinder which cylinder is manufactured out of steel plates and Entry 66 of first schedule r/w entry 3(ii) of notification dated 23.09.1998 would encompass the description of the items in the class and it is conceivable that containers like the steel drums would com within the genus of packing material and species of steel drums and thus exigible to tax. Hence, we are of the opinion that contention of the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted and accordingly the same is rejected and the submission made by Government Advocate deserves to be accepted. 21. In view of the above the question of law formulated herein above is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly the revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs.