JUDGMENT 1. - The Revenue is aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.05.2002 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, whereby the learned Board has upheld the order dated 01.05.1999 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Udaipur wherein the learned Divisional Commissioner had set aside the assessment order dated 02.05.1998. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s. Prakash Sales Corporation, Udaipur carries on the business of tyres and tubes. Dealing with the assessment year 1994-95, for the period from 01.04.1994 to 31.03.1995, the assessment order was passed by the assessing authority under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act ('the Act', for short). As per the return submitted by the assessee, they have assessed themselves by paying tax @ 10% per annum on patch and chemical solution. However, according to the Revenue such a patch and solution were subject to be taxed @ 15% per annum as the patch and solution fall within the definition of word "adhesive". Therefore, the assessee had submitted incorrect return. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee. In reply to the show cause notice, the assessee had asserted that the patch and solution were used for repairing tyre and tube. Therefore, they are not "adhesive". But, the patch and solution are a kind of vulcanized rubber and fluid. Therefore, they cannot be taxed @ 15% per annum. However, the assessing authority disagreed with the plea raised by the assessee. Vide assessment order dated 02.05.1998, it collected tax and interest to the tune of Rs. 1,32,015/- from the assessee. 3. Since the assessee was aggrieved by the said order, it filed first appeal before the learned appellate authority. Vide judgment dated 01.05.1999, the learned appellate authority allowed the appeal. According to the learned appellate authority, the patches are rectangle and oval in shape and the solution used in mending the tyres and tubes cannot be termed as an adhesive. Therefore, they do not fall within the meaning of word "adhesive". Instead, the patch is vulcanized solution and as a rubber, they cannot be taxed @ 15% per annum. Since, the Revenue was aggrieved by the said order, it filed a second appeal before the learned Board. However, vide judgment dated 31.05.2002 the learned Board has upheld the order dated 01.05.1999 passed by the learned appellate authority. Hence, this petition before this Court. 4. Mr. Since, the Revenue was aggrieved by the said order, it filed a second appeal before the learned Board. However, vide judgment dated 31.05.2002 the learned Board has upheld the order dated 01.05.1999 passed by the learned appellate authority. Hence, this petition before this Court. 4. Mr. Lokesh Mathur on behalf of Mr. V.K. Mathur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the nature of the commodity cannot be interpreted on the basis of the scientific or technical meaning. But, in fact, it should be interpreted with regard to the popular meaning, or as it would be known in the trade circle. According to him, patch is known as adhesive. Therefore, it would fall within the Entry No.88 which deals with adhesive. Moreover, Entry No. 88 deals with "..all types of adhesive including glue..." Thus, any commodity which is like an adhesive would fall within the words "all types of adhesive including glue". In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of the Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh [ AIR 1967 SC 1454 and Royal Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. Etc., v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. [ AIR 1994 SC 666 ] 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Bhandari, the learned counsel for the assessee, has contended that the patches were produced before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority, therefore, had the benefit of seeing the nature of the patches. Secondly, patches cannot adhere to the tube or to the tyre by itself. In fact a solution has to be applied to the rubber patches in order to make them stick to the tyre and tube. Thus, the patch by itself does not have any "adhesive" until and unless the solution is applied. In fact, as far as the solution was concerned, the first appellate authority and the Tax Board have held that the solution will fall within the Entry No. 88 as being "adhesive". But they were of the opinion that the patch which Is nothing, but a piece of a vulcanized rubber, cannot fall within the definition of terms "all types of adhesive including glue". Therefore, he has supported the Impugned order. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 7. Both the parties are ad Idem that the patch does not have self-adhesive quality. Therefore, he has supported the Impugned order. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 7. Both the parties are ad Idem that the patch does not have self-adhesive quality. In fact, the patch can be stuck to a tyre or a tube only after a solution has been applied to the patch. Therefore, it would not fall within the terms of all types of adhesive. For, the word "adhesive" entails the quality of a substance to ensure that two surfaces "adhere" to or stick to each other. Since the patch by itself cannot stick to another surface, namely tyre or tube, it does not fall within the definition of "adhesive". 8. Undoubtedly, one of the principles of interpretation for the purpose of classification is to consider the commodity as it is known in the trade circle. However, there is nothing on record to show that the patch is considered to be "adhesive" by itself. Moreover, There is nothing to show that the patch is being sold as an "adhesive". In fact, the first appellate authority has noticed the shape and nature of the patch. Therefore, the contention that the patch should be interpreted in accordance with its popular meaning in the trade circle does not come to the rescue of the revenue. 9. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity In the impugned order. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******