JUDGMENT Ms. Harsha Devani :- The Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ("the Act"), at the instance of the State of Gujarat : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal was right in law in holding that sale of cutting oil evidenced by invoice No. 4062 dated June 10, 1983 is classifiable under entry 34 of Schedule II, Part A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and should be taxed accordingly and not under entry 15 of Schedule II, Part A of the said Act or under any other entry thereof ?" The respondent is a Government company engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of various kinds of petroleum products including lubricants and speciality oils. Among the various industrial speciality oils manufactured by the assessee are metal cutting and machining oils broadly known as "cutting oils" which are being marketed by the assessee under the brand name "Koolkut" and "Trimofin". These oils are manufactured predominantly from refined base stocked produced at the assessee's refinery at Trombay mixed with certain additives to meet the end-use requirements. "Koolkut" and "Trimofin" grade of cutting oils cover a wide range of water mix and straight cutting oils for different applications in the metal working and other types of processing industries in the country. The wide range of cutting oils enable the selection of an oil, meeting the exact requirements of specific cutting operations for achieving high speed of cutting with good work finish and longer tool life. The "Koolkut" grades of cutting oils cover, in particular, the water mix type of cutting fluids recommended to be used in admixture with water, the proportion varying from 20 parts to 100 parts of water per part of oil depending upon the end-use. The essential function of "Koolkut" grades of cutting oils is as coolant and for rust-prevention and these oils are recommended for use in grinding and metal cutting operations. These products have good heat transfer properties to cool effectively under high speed conditions. "Trimofin" grades of cutting oils are also essentially used as coolant in machining operations including broaching, gear cutting and thread grinding operations in addition to rust prevention. These products have good heat transfer properties to cool effectively under high speed conditions. "Trimofin" grades of cutting oils are also essentially used as coolant in machining operations including broaching, gear cutting and thread grinding operations in addition to rust prevention. Thus, primary function of the various grades of cutting oils manufactured and sold by the assessee is for use as coolant for cutting, grinding and machining operations in the various processing industries. The cutting oils are neither intended nor recommended by the assessee for lubricating of the machine or machine tools for which specific grades of lubricating oils manufactured by the assessee are recommended and used. The primary function of these cutting oils is to keep the cutting tool as well as the job cool so that there is no undue deformity and/or fire hazard during the machining/cutting operations. These cutting oils also carry away the metal filling generated during the machining/cutting operations so that there is no undue overloading on the machining/cutting tool. These cutting oils are not used for the lubrication of the machine tools and if there is any lubricating advantage attained during the metal machining/cutting operations that is only secondary and incidental. For the purpose of sales tax, the various grades of cutting oils manufactured and marketed by the assessee are being treated as petroleum products covered by entry 32 of Schedule IIA to the Act and not as "lubricants" covered by entry 15 of the said Schedule. The question having arisen as to whether "cutting oils" were classifiable as "lubricants" under entry 15 of Schedule IIA to the Act or as "petroleum products" under entry 32 of Schedule IIA to the Act, an application was filed by the assessee under section 62 of the Act before the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ahmedabad, seeking determination of the correct rate of tax on the sales of "cutting oils" evidenced by invoice dated June 10, 1983. The case of the assessee was that having regard to the predominant functions and end-use, cutting oils cannot really be classified as "lubricants" under entry 15 of Schedule IIA to the Act. The Commissioner was requested to determine the correct rate of tax, which according to the assessee, was the one applicable under entry 32 of Schedule IIA to the Act, being a "petroleum product" other than "lubricants". The Commissioner was requested to determine the correct rate of tax, which according to the assessee, was the one applicable under entry 32 of Schedule IIA to the Act, being a "petroleum product" other than "lubricants". The question sought for determination was whether the sales of "cutting oils" evidenced by invoice No. 4062 dated June 10, 1983 is covered by entry 32 of Schedule IIA to the Act and attracts sales tax at the rate of 5 per cent, ad valorem as prescribed therein. The said question was answered in the negative by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Audit), by his order dated July 27, 1984 who, inter alia, held that the product "cutting oils" evidenced by invoice dated June 10, 1983 was a lubricant covered by entry 15 of Schedule IIA to the Act and was liable to tax at the rate prescribed therein. Against the order of determination under section 62 of the Act, the assessee went in appeal to the Tribunal under section 65 of the Act, who vide order dated July 20, 1987, allowed the appeal and set aside the determination order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Audit) and held that the sale of "cutting oils" evidenced by invoice No. 4062 dated June 10, 1983 was covered by entry 32 of Schedule II, Part A to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (the Act) attracting sales tax at the rates prescribed therein. Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has invited attention to the determination order made under section 62 of the Act, to submit that though the main function of the product may be as a cooling agent and lubricating effect is merely secondary one, it is an admitted position that the said product does have a lubricating effects, may be to a lesser extent, however, that would not detract from the fact that the product in question is a lubricant. It is submitted that merely because the cooling function is the predominant feature of the product in question, it does not meant that the said product ceases to be a lubricant. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, reduction of friction and dissipation of heat are inter-connected with each other and, therefore, the extent of proportion of the discharge of the functions, viz., coolants and/or lubricants should not be decisive of the basic nature of the product. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, reduction of friction and dissipation of heat are inter-connected with each other and, therefore, the extent of proportion of the discharge of the functions, viz., coolants and/or lubricants should not be decisive of the basic nature of the product. It is submitted that the view adopted by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the popular parlance test as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola [1961] 12 STC 286 (SC). According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader the certificate issued by the purchasers of the products could not have been considered since the nature of the product cannot be decided solely on the user test. It was, accordingly, urged that the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax had rightly determined that the product in question would be covered under entry 15 of Schedule II, Part A to the Act which is the specific entry for lubricants and that the same would prevail over the general entry. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The only issue that arises for determination is as to whether the product, viz., "cutting oil" is classifiable under entry 34 of Schedule II, Part A to the Act or under entry 15 of Schedule II, Part A to the Act. A perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal indicates that before the Tribunal, it had been contended on behalf of the assessee that the assessee had established from the commercial literature as also from the certificate issued by the processing industries that the product in question could not be characterized as a lubricant on the application of the doctrine of common parlance. In support of the submission, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indo International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh [1981] 47 STC 359 (SC) for the proposition that if any term or expression has been defined in the enactment, then it must be understood in the sense in which it is defined but in the absence of any definition being given in the enactment the meaning of the term in common parlance or commercial parlance has to be adopted. Reliance was also placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [1980] 46 STC 256 (SC) and in the case of Atul Glass Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1986] 63 STC 322 (SC). The assessee further sought to distinguish various products like industrial lubricating oils and industrial specialties. It was submitted before the Tribunal that the term "industrial lubricating oils" defines that efficient lubrication is the proper selection and application of lubricant which effectively and economically meets a given operating condition. Much of today's modern machinery operates at high speed or heavy loads or extremes of temperature frequently under tight schedules in automatic, precision production lines. These machines must be lubricated with the right oil, at the right place and at the right time. The oil must reduce friction, prevent wear or corrosion and carry the loads needed to keep the machines operating at top efficiency. In fact, the lubricant becomes a key part of the machines, as important as a bearing or a gear. On the other hand, industrial specialties represent a group of petroleum products which find wide application in the various processing industries. These products are primarily used as processing aids for manufacture of high quality finished goods. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, observed that the main function of the product in question was as a coolant and lubricating effect was merely secondary and was of the view that common parlance test as laid down by the Supreme Court should be made applicable in the instant case also and that if this was done in the correct manner, the result would be that the product of the assessee would be classified under entry 32 of Schedule II, Part A of the Act, as "petroleum products" and not under entry 15 of Schedule II, Part A of the Act as "lubricants". The Supreme Court in the case of Indo International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh [1981] 47 STC 359 (SC) held that in interpreting items in statutes like the Excise Tax Acts or Sales Tax Acts, whose primary object is to raise revenue and for which purpose they classify diverse products, 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. If any term or expression has been defined in the enactment, then it must be understood in the sense in which it is defined but in the absence of any definition being given in the enactment, the meaning of the term in common parlance or commercial parlance has to be adopted. The court, in the said case, observed that though the dictionary meaning of the expression "glassware" is "articles made of glass" in a commercial sense glassware would never comprise articles like clinical syringes, thermometers, lactometers and the like, which have a specialized significance and utility. Applying the aforesaid test, the court was of the opinion that the clinical syringes manufactured and sold by the assessee therein should not be considered as "glassware", falling within entry 39 of the First Schedule to the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. In the case of Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [1980] 46 STC 256 (SC), the Supreme Court held that in determining the meaning or connotation of words and expressions describing an article or commodity, the turnover of which is taxed in a sales tax enactment, if there is one principle fairly well-settled, it is that the words or expressions must be construed in the sense in which they are understood in the trade, by the dealer and the consumer. It is they who are concerned with it, and it is the sense in which they understand it that constitutes the definitive index of the legislative intention when the statute was enacted. In the case of Atul Glass Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1986] 63 STC 322 (SC), the court was considering the question as to whether glass mirrors fall under tariff item No. 23A(4) or tariff item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In the case of Atul Glass Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1986] 63 STC 322 (SC), the court was considering the question as to whether glass mirrors fall under tariff item No. 23A(4) or tariff item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court held that it is a matter of common experience that the identity of an article is associated with its primary function. It is only logical that it should be so. When a consumer buys an article, he buys it because it performs a specific function for him. There is a mental association in the mind of the consumer between the article and the need it supplies in his life. It is the functional character of the article which identifies it in his mind. In the case of a glass mirror, the consumer recalls primarily the reflective function of the article more than anything else. It is a mirror, an article which reflects images. It is referred to as a glass mirror only because the word "glass" is descriptive of the mirror in that glass has been used as a medium for manufacturing the mirror. The basis or fundamental character of the article lies in its being a mirror. Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the principles enunciated in the decisions referred to hereinabove, the record of the case indicates that the products of the assessee, viz., "cutting oils" which are marketed under the brand name "Koolkut" and "Trimofin" are essentially used as coolant in machining operations including broaching, gear cutting and thread grinding operations in addition to rust prevention. Thus, the primary function of the various grades of cutting oils manufactured and sold by the assessee is for use as coolant for cutting, grinding and machining operations in the various processing industries. The cutting oils are neither intended nor recommended by the assessee for lubricating of the machine or machine tools for which specific grades of lubricating oils manufactured by the assessee are recommended and used. The primary function of these cutting oils is to keep the cutting tool as well as the job cool so that there is no undue deformity and/or fire hazard during the machining/cutting operations. The primary function of these cutting oils is to keep the cutting tool as well as the job cool so that there is no undue deformity and/or fire hazard during the machining/cutting operations. These cutting oils also carry away the metal filling generated during the machining/cutting operations so that there is no undue overloading on the machining/cutting tool. These cutting oils are not used for the lubrication of the machine tools and if there is any lubricating advantage attained during the metal machining/cutting operations that is only secondary and incidental. Thus, applying the common parlance test, the product of the assessee is commonly known as "coolant" in the commercial as well as common parlance. The invoices produced by the assessee evidencing sale of the product in question indicate that the same has been sold as "coolant" and not as a "lubricant". Thus, when the principal function of the product is to act as a coolant, the consumer recalls primarily the cooling function of the product more than anything else, and consumer purchases the same for using the same as a coolant, merely because the product also has a lubricating effect, the same cannot be classified as "lubricant" under entry 15 of Schedule II, Part A to the Act. The reasoning adopted by the Deputy Commissioner, viz., that since the product has lubricating quality, the same would fall under the specific heading of "lubricants" and not under the general entry 84 of Schedule II, Part A to the Act, is clearly based on an erroneous interpretation of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales tax Officer, Akola [1961] 12 STC 286 (SC). The said decision also lays down that an item in a taxing statute is to be understood as in common parlance. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the product in question is classifiable under entry 34 of Schedule II, Part A to the Act and should be taxed accordingly. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the reference is answered in the affirmative. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the product in question is classifiable under entry 34 of Schedule II, Part A to the Act and should be taxed accordingly. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the reference is answered in the affirmative. The Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sale of cutting oil evidenced by invoice No. 4062 dated June 10, 1983 is classifiable under entry 34 of Schedule II, Part A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and should be taxed accordingly and not under entry 15 of Schedule II, Part A of the said Act or under any other entry thereof. he reference stands disposed of accordingly.