JUDGMENT K. L. MANJUNATH, J. - Heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent. The facts leading to this case are as hereunder : The appellant is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. He is trading in ammonium nitrate. Considering the provision of section 60 of the KVAT Act, 2003, which provision was in force till March 31, 2007, sought a clarification by approaching the Authority for Clarification and Advance Rulings, in regard to the rate of tax prescribed for ammonium nitrate in question. The Advance Rulings Authority ruled that it had to be taxed at four per cent under entry 23 of the Third Schedule to the KVAT Act treating it as a chemical fertilizer, chemical fertilizer mixtures, etc., by its order dated March 30, 2007. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, noticed that the order of the Advance Rulings Authority was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, by exercising his revisional power suo motu initiated the proceedings and having heard the assessee, came to the conclusion that ammonium nitrate is not only used as a high-nitrogen fertilizer in carrying agricultural activities, it is also being used as an oxidizing agent in explosives, including improvised explosive devices and that the same is also used for manufacture of zeolite catalysts which would be used in petroleum industry and is also used in military explosives and also used as instant cold packs and used in the preparation of nitrous oxide and it is also used as raw material in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Considering that it cannot be used as a chemical fertilizer alone and holding that it is one of the chemical compound used for the manufacture of agricultural fertilizer relying upon the judgment of this court in Mysore Agro Service Centre v. State of Karnataka reported in [1993] 90 STC 401 set aside the ruling of the Advance Ruling Authority by his order dated October 22, 2009. This order is called in question in this appeal. This order is called in question in this appeal. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before us is that the chemical compound in question is used in agriculture as a high-nitrogen fertilizer and it also used for many purposes, he contends that the order of the Commissioner is bad in law and that the same would fall under entry 23 of the Third Schedule. According to him, under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and also Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, it is considered as a chemical fertilizer. Therefore the order of the Commissioner has to be set aside. In the circumstances, he requests the court to frame the substantial questions of law and allow the appeal. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submits that no substantial questions of law arises in this appeal since ammonium nitrate is used not only in agricultural field but also for many purposes and when the chemical compound is used in manufacturing of different chemical products and when it is mainly used in manufacturing explosives and also in petroleum products and various industries, as held by this court in Mysore Agro Service Centre v. State of Karnataka [1993] 90 STC 401. The Commissioner was justified in holding that the ruling of the Advance Ruling Authority is bad in law and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. According to her the chemical compound in question cannot be placed under entry 23 of the Third Schedule and the same has to be brought under section 4(1)(a) of the Act. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the learned Commissioner is justified in setting aside the order passed by the Advance Ruling Authority for the following reasons : The learned advocate who is appearing for the assessee does not dispute that the ammonium nitrate can be used in different field and is being used in different activities. When the same chemical compound is used in order to manufacture of explosive devices as an oxidizing agent and is used in petroleum industry and used by the military as a military explosive and in various other activities, we are of the opinion that the chemical compound cannot be placed under entry 23 of the Third Schedule to the Act. According to us, the Commissioner is justified in treating it as a residuary clause under section 4(1)(a) of the Act. According to us, the Commissioner is justified in treating it as a residuary clause under section 4(1)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal holding that no substantial questions of law arises in this appeal.