Judgment :- (Order of the Court was made by F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA) The State is the petitioner. The challenge is to the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 15.02.2001 in T.A.No.1140 of 1999. 2. The short question for consideration is "whether the Desk Top Projector dealt with by the respondent-assessee will fall under Entry 33 of Part D of the First Schedule or Entry 44 of Part B of the First Schedule?" 3. The assessment year is 1995-96. The relevant entries, viz. Entry 33 of Part D of the First Schedule and Entry 44 of Part B of the First Schedule were as under: "33. ORIGINAL ENTRY FROM 12.3.1993 Cinematographic equipments, including cameras, projectors, over-head projectors, sound-recording and reproducing equipments, parts and accessories thereof and lenses, exposed films, film-strips, are or cinema carbons, cinema slides, paper, paper boards required for use therewith. 44. ORIGINAL ENTRY FROM 12.3.1993 Television sets of all kinds, car television, television cameras, television monitors, projectors, closed circuit television sets and cameras, video televisions, video cameras, teleprompters, parts and and accessories thereof and antenna, dish antenna, boosters & T.V. stand." 4. One other entry, which was also the point for discussion, was Entry 50 of Part B of the First Schedule, which reads as under: "50. ORIGINAL ENTRY FROM 12.3.1993 Electronic systems, instruments, apparatus, appliances and other electronic goods (other than those specified elsewhere in the schedule) but including electronic cash registering, indexing, card punching, franking, addressing machines, and computers of analog and digital varieties, one record units, word processor and other electronic goods and parts and accessories of all such goods." 5. The respondent/assessee is a dealer in sales of cinematographic goods as well as electronic goods. As part of its selling activity, it was marketing Desk Top Projectors manufactured by General Engineering and its spares manufacturers. The Desk Top Projector is an electronically operated equipment, which consists of liquid crystal display panel mounted in a box. It has computer compatibility of IBM PC. It is used as a monitor output device. 6. The literature of the Desk Top Projector discloses that there were four different models with minor variations as between each models. The common feature of Desk Top Projector is stated to be a multimedia equipment, which is used for boardroom conferences as well as in educational institutions for the purpose of power point presentations. 6. The literature of the Desk Top Projector discloses that there were four different models with minor variations as between each models. The common feature of Desk Top Projector is stated to be a multimedia equipment, which is used for boardroom conferences as well as in educational institutions for the purpose of power point presentations. The literature also states that it offers top-of-the-line support for video from laser disc or VCR sources. It has the capacity of approximately projecting images as much as 12 feet by 9 feet even in the most challenging full-light environments. In other words, the Desk Top Projector is stated to be an equipment ideally suited for display of movies and videos in the course of training programs in institutions, companies, board-meetings and other industrial establishments. 7. One other relevant factor, which is highlighted in the literature, as well as claimed by the respondent/assessee, is that the Desk Top Projector cannot be used in the regular cinema theatres for display of movies. 8. Keeping the above factors in mind, it will have to be examined, "whether the Desk Top Projector would fall under Entry 33 of Part D of the First Schedule or Entry 44 of Part B of the First Schedule". 9. While Entry 33 of Part D refers to "cinematographic equipments, which inter alia includes a Projector also", Entry 44 relates to "Television sets and other items, which also refers to projector in general". When there is no acceptable material to hold that the Desk Top Projector can be used in cinema theatres and the nature of the product and its description as well as the purport of its usage makes it abundantly clear that it is meant for power point presentations in boardrooms, educational institutions, class rooms for training and other alleged purposes, it will have to be held that it cannot be brought under the category of cinematographic equipments, which entry specifically states that that would include a projector also. 10. Once we steer clear of the said position and when Entry 44 specifically mentions and contains Projector as part of the said entry, but as an independent item, there can be no difficulty in holding that the Desk Top Projector, which is not a Projector falling under the inclusive definition of cinematographic equipments, will certainly fall under the said entry, viz., Entry 44 of Part B of the First Schedule. 11. 11. The difference between "Entry 33 of Part D of the First Schedule" and "Entry 44 of Part B of the First Schedule" is quite distinct and apparent. While Entry 33 of Part D of the First Schedule, the expression used is "cinematographic equipments, ..... including a Projector", in Entry 44 of Part B of the First Schedule, each item is separately mentioned, viz., "television sets of all kinds, car television, television cameras, television monitors, projectors....". When the legislature has consciously used such expressions in the Entries 33 and 44 distinctly, that by itself makes it clear that there could be projectors, which are part of cinematographic equipments, which includes cameras, ordinary projectors, overhead projectors, sound recording and reproducing equipments, lenses, etc. The expression "including" after the expression "cinematographic equipments" specifically contained in Entry 33 makes it clear that such of those cameras, projectors, sound recording equipments, etc., which are intrinsically connected with cinematography to stand apart from such similar item, one of which is a projector, when it is totally unconnected with cinematography, would fall under Entry 44 of Part B. 12. As against Entry 33, when we examine Entry 44, we find that each of the time is separately set out, viz., television sets, television cameras, television monitors, projectors, closed circuit television sets, cameras, video televisions, video cameras, etc. The specific expression "including" used in Entry 33 is not found in Entry 44. Such a specific mention of the expression "including" in Entry 33 would make all the difference in respect of the projector connected with cinematography and a projector unconnected to cinematography. Therefore, such a wide distinction as between the two entries, makes it clear that the projector, which has nothing to do with cinematography, would clearly fall only under Entry 44 of Part B of the First Schedule. 13. With the above perspective about the product, when we examine the orders of the Assessing Authority, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and that of the Tribunal, we find that the Assessing Authority by rejecting the contention of the respondent that the Desk Top Projector will not fall under Entry 50 of Part B of the First Schedule, which relates to electronic goods, reached the conclusion that the same would fall under Entry 33 of Part D of the First Schedule. The Assessing Authority, therefore, did not examine the question "whether the Desk Top Operator would fall under Entry 44 of Part B of the First Schedule, though there was an entry relating to projector other than the projector connected to cinematographic equipments. Therefore, the order of the Assessing Authority does not throw much light on that issue. 14. As far as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is concerned, in Paragraph 11, he merely held that the Assessing Officer having taken the view that the Desk Top Projector being used only in movie theatres and therefore, it was also a cinematographic equipment, which conclusion was in order and therefore, no interference is called for. The Appellate Assistant Commissioners order also therefore does not throw much light on this issue. 15. On the other hand, when we examine the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal apart from making a detailed reference to the contention of the respondent with particular reference to the various parts contained in the product viz., Desk Top Projector, was also stated to have had the advantage of visual inspection of the equipment, which was presented before it. Moreover, the State representative placed before the Tribunal a clarificatory letter of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, dated 22.03.1999, wherein it was clarified that the portable LCD Computer Multimedia Projector would fall under Entry 58 of Part D of the First Schedule, which was in existence in the year 1997. The said Entry 58 was the relevant Entry 44 as it existed in the assessment year 1995-1996. 16. The Tribunal has noted that the Desk Top Projector is also the multimedia equipment comparable to a Portable LCD Computer Multimedia Projector. Therefore, the clarification issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes mutatis mutandis would apply to a Desk Top Projector. Thus, we find that the Appellate Tribunal had considered the issue in depth before reaching the conclusion that the relevant entry relating to Desk Top Projector would be Entry 44 of Part B of the First Schedule. 17. Therefore, the clarification issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes mutatis mutandis would apply to a Desk Top Projector. Thus, we find that the Appellate Tribunal had considered the issue in depth before reaching the conclusion that the relevant entry relating to Desk Top Projector would be Entry 44 of Part B of the First Schedule. 17. Having got the advantage of the order of the Appellate Tribunal, in particular the statements contained in paragraphs 3 to 7 and the findings in paragraph 8, with which, we fully concur, we hold that the said conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal was based on cogent and convincing materials and the reasoning is also perfectly justified. We, therefore, do not find any scope to interfere with the order of the Appellate Tribunal. 18. Learned Special Government Pleader in his submissions relied upon the decision of this Court reported in (2010) 30 VST 23 (Mad) (Electro Optics (P) Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others), wherein with regard to the survey instrument when the assessee claimed that the said survey equipment should be brought under the entry relating to electronic items, this Court held that even though it was electronically operated item, the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted by applying the principle of ejusdem generis. 19. We are not in a position to apply the said decision to the facts of this case, inasmuch as we find that though the survey equipment dealt with in the said case is an electronically operated device, but yet there was an entry under Entry 14 of Part F of the First Schedule, which along with other items included survey instruments. As the survey instrument was part of a specific entry viz., Entry 14 of Part F of the First Schedule, the Division Bench rejected the stand of the assessee in that case holding that the said equipment should still be brought under the entry relating to electronic items. As the survey instrument was part of a specific entry viz., Entry 14 of Part F of the First Schedule, the Division Bench rejected the stand of the assessee in that case holding that the said equipment should still be brought under the entry relating to electronic items. On the other hand, in the said decision, the Division Bench has made it clear that it is settled proposition that in interpreting items in statutes whose primary object is to raise revenue and for which purpose classification of diverse products have been made, resort should be had not to the scientific and technical meaning of the terms or expressions used, but to their popular meaning, that is to say, the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them. 20. Applying the said principle to the case on hand both going by the literature of the manufacturer and the usage of the product, viz., Desk Top Projector, the common usage of which is in conferences and institutions while holding meetings and training programs as an in-house practice, it can be safely held that there is absolutely no scope to hold Desk Top Projector is a cinematographic equipment or it is used in movie theatres for exhibiting regular cinemas in order to hold that the said projector would fall under Entry 33 of Part D of the First Schedule. We, for all the above stated reasons, do not find any scope to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. 21. In the result, this tax case revision fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.