Judgment :- B.V. Nagarathna, J. This appeal is filed by the appellant who is a dealer registered under the KVAT Act, 2003 by challenging the order dated 14.6.2006 made by the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling constituted under the said Act and to consider the following substantial question of law: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent-authority was justified in holding that ammonia in aqueous solution is chargeable at 12.5% although ammonia in aqueous solution is nothing but ammonia anhydrous mixed with water? 2. The relevant facts leading to filing of this case are that the appellant who is the dealer in supplying Ammonia, Anhydrous and Aqueous Solution which is registered under the provisions of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and is also currently registered under the KVAT Act, filed an application before the Authority for Advance Ruling by seeking a clarification as to whether the product “Ammonia Anhydrous” and “Ammonia Aqueous Solution” are one and the same and if so, the rate of tax would be identical. The said authority by its order dated 14.6.2006 has held that the said products are different in nature and that the rate of tax are also different since they fall under different categories and accordingly, has answered the query sought by the appellant against the appellant. It is the said order that is questioned in this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Governments Advocate for the respondent State. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is a supplier of Ammonia and that the said Ammonia is supplied in anhydrous or gaseous form and since the quantity of supply is always huge for the purpose of convenience of transportation the said product is converted into aqueous solution and after reaching the destination thereafter, water from the said aqueous solution is removed and in effect, the product that is sold is ammonia anhydrous. That by notification dated 23.3.2005 the rate of tax was only at 4% in terms of Sl.No.35 of the third schedule to the KVAT Act. That by notification dated 23.3.2005 the rate of tax was only at 4% in terms of Sl.No.35 of the third schedule to the KVAT Act. But the subsequent notification No.FD.197 CSL 2005(6) dated 30.4.2005 has excluded the words “aqueous solution” and therefore, despite the said exclusion in notification dated 30.4.2005 since the product is one and the same, it is only 4% tax that is leviable and the Authority for Advance Ruling did not consider the notification in its proper perspective and also did not appreciate the nature of the product and the purpose for which water has been added in order to convert ammonia anhydrous into aqueous solution and hence, the said order is bad in law. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate supporting the said order has relied upon the affidavit filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to contend that ammonia anhydrous and ammonia in aqueous solution are two different products and that their utility are for different purposes. That by virtue of the earlier notifications dated 23.3.2005, the same rate of tax was applicable to both products, but by subsequent notification dated 30.4.2005, there is definite intention to omit ammonia in aqueous solution from the said notification as per Sl.No.44 and hence, the Authority was justified in holding that they are different products and therefore, different taxes were applicable. 6. Having heard both the Counsel and on perusal of the material on record, it is no doubt true that in notification No.FD.55.CSL.2005(8), dated 23.3.2005 issued by the State Government at Sl.No.35 under Sub-Heading No.2814.00 the following is mentioned, and the said notification is extracted as follows: “GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA No.FD 55 SCL 2005 (8) Karnataka Government Secretariate Vidhana Soudha In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4(1)(a) read with Entry 35 of Third Schedule of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (Karnataka Act 32 of 2004), the Government of Karnataka hereby specifies with effect from the first day of April 2005, the goods mentioned in column (4) of the table below with heading and sub-heading numbers under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. (Act 5 of 1986) mentioned in column (2) and (3), as industrial inputs and packing materials, namely”. Within few days the said notification was superceded by notification dated 30.4.2005. (Act 5 of 1986) mentioned in column (2) and (3), as industrial inputs and packing materials, namely”. Within few days the said notification was superceded by notification dated 30.4.2005. It would be useful to extract the relevant portion of the said notification which is produced as Annexure-B for the purpose of this case: “GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA No. FD. 197.CSL.2005(6) Karnataka Government Secretariate, Vidhana Soudha Bangalore, Dated: 30.04.2005 In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 read with entry serial number 35 of the Third Schedule of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (Karnataka Act 32 of 2004) and in suppression of Notification No.FD 55 CSL 2005 (8), dated 23rd March, 2005 the Government of Karnataka hereby specifies with effect from the first day of May, 2005, the goods specified in column (3) of the table below with heading and sub-heading numbers under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (Central Act 5 of 1986) specified in column (2) as industrial inputs and packing materials, namely: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl.No. Heading and Sub-heading Description (1) (2) (3) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ------- ------ 2. ------- ------- 44 2814.10.00 Ammonia, Anhydrous 45 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation.-(1) The Rules for the interpretation of the Central Excise Tarrif Act, 1985 read with Explanatory Notes as updated from time to time published by the Customs Co-operation Council, Brussels apply for the interpretation of this notification. (2) Where any commodities are described against any heading or, as the case may be, subheading, and the aforesaid description is different in any manner from the corresponding description in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, then only those commodities described as aforesaid will be covered by the scope of this notification and other commodities though covered by the corresponding description in the Central Excise Tariff will not be covered by the scope of this notification. (3) Subject to Explanation 2, for the purpose of any entry contained in this notification, where the description against any heading or, as the case may be, sub-heading, matches fully with the corresponding description in the Central Excise Tariff, then all the commodities covered for the purposes of the said tariff under that heading or sub-heading will be covered by the scope of this notification. (4) Where the description against any heading or sub-heading is shown as “other” then the interpretation as provided in Explanation 2 shall apply. (4) Where the description against any heading or sub-heading is shown as “other” then the interpretation as provided in Explanation 2 shall apply. By Order and in the name of the Government of Karnataka (S. Divakar) Under Secretary to Government Finance Department (C.T.-1) 7. On a reading of the said notification at Sl.No.44 under heading and sub-heading 2814.10.00 the description of the said product is “ammonia and anhydrous.” From the same it is apparent that the words “aqueous solution” which were present in notification dated 23.3.2005 are excluded or deleted in the notification dated 30.4.2005. It is also relevant to note that a reference is made to the serial number corresponding to Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Manual wherein at 2814.10.00 reference is made only to “anhydrous ammonia” whereas in the said Central Excise Manual “ammonia in aqueous solution” is also referred to as 2814.20.00. In this context, it would be of relevance to note that explanation (2) and (3) categorically mention that only if the headings mentioned in the notification issued under the KVAT Act matches fully with the corresponding explanation in the Central Excise Tariff Act then only the latter could be consider or otherwise as per explanation (2), the notification issued under the KVAT Act would override the one issued under the Central Excise Tariff Act with regard to the goods enumerated in the said notification. On a reading of the same it becomes very clear that the Department has consciously deleted “ammonia in aqueous solution” from the notification dated 30.4.2005. There is a conscious exclusive of ammonia aqueous solution from the list of industrial inputs as per the notification dated 30.4.2005. As such, the same is not to be taxed at 4%, but under the general category at 12.5%. therefore, the reference made to Circular No.236/70/96-CX dated 1.8.1996 issued by the Ministry Defence, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs with regard to conversion of anhydrous ammonia into liquor ammonia and as to whether it amounts to manufacture has no relevance. Therefore, reference made by the Counsel for the appellant to the circular. Hence, the Authority of Advance Ruling was justified holding that the product, “ammonia anhydrous” is different from “ammonia in aqueous solution” and thereby the rate tax would be different i.e., 12.5% for the latter and 4% the former product. Therefore, reference made by the Counsel for the appellant to the circular. Hence, the Authority of Advance Ruling was justified holding that the product, “ammonia anhydrous” is different from “ammonia in aqueous solution” and thereby the rate tax would be different i.e., 12.5% for the latter and 4% the former product. Accordingly, the said order does not call for any interference in this appeal. Hence, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The appeal is hereby dismissed.