JUDGMENT 1. - Having lost concurrently before all the three authorities below, namely: Assessing Authority, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, the assessee- M/s Agrawal Aluminium, Jodhpur is before this Court in the present batch of revision petitions being aggrieved by the Tax Board order dated 5/7/2010 by which the Tax Board held against the assessee that the goods manufactured and sold by it namely; Aluminium Grill or Aluminium Grill Section was not taxable under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003, which came into force w.e.f. 1.4.2006, as 'Metal Mesh' @ 4% under Schedule IV of the Act but @ 12.5% under the Residuary Entry in Schedule V of the said Act. 2. In pursuance of the survey conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 28/9/2007, the Assessing Authority found that assessee after purchasing Aluminium Sections from M/s Hindalco Industries Limited, was manufacturing Aluminium Grill or Aluminium Grill Section and from the documents produced during the course of survey like dispatch sheets, sale invoices, bilty of transporters and declaration given to Insurance Companies, the good sold were described as Aluminium Grill sections only and, therefore, the said commodity being not covered under any specific Entry of Schedule IV of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the said goods were liable to be taxed @ 12.5% under Residuary Entry for which Schedule V was enacted in the Rajasthan VAT Act and accordingly the Assessing Authority vide assessment order dated 5/4/2008 framed for different periods raised demand for differential tax, interest and penalty thereon. 3. The assessee went in appeal before the first appellate authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, who vide his order dated 30/8/2008 upheld the imposition of difference of tax and interest, however, be set aside the imposition of penalty under Section 61 of the Act since transactions in question were duly recorded in the regular Books of Accounts maintained by the assessee. 4. The matter was again taken up before the Tax Board both by the assessee being aggrieved by the imposition of tax and interest and in cross appeals by Revenue being dissatisfied with the setting aside of the penalty. 5. 4. The matter was again taken up before the Tax Board both by the assessee being aggrieved by the imposition of tax and interest and in cross appeals by Revenue being dissatisfied with the setting aside of the penalty. 5. The learned Tax Board by the impugned order dated 5/7/2010 dismissed the appeals of the assessee and Revenue and thus maintained the levy of tax and Interest on the assessee and also held that Imposition of penalty at the same time was not justified. 6. Both the assessee as well as Revenue have filed revision petition before this Court which are being disposed of by this common order. At the same time, the assessee has filed another writ petition. namely SBCWP No. 932/2011 being aggrieved of the assessment order for the year 2009-2010 and the said writ petition was filed against the assessment notice dated 10/1/2011 and during the pendency of said writ petition, the assessment order raising similar demand of different tax was also passed by the Assessing Authority and for the same reasons, the present writ petition is also being disposed of by separate order today. 7. The revision petitions filed by sister concern M/s P.N. Agrawal & Company, Jodhpur, the retail outlet of assessee, who purchased the said goods from manufacturing unit sold to various customers, are also filed on the same ground and, therefore, they shall also stand disposed of by this common judgment. 8. Mr. Dinesh Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assessee submitted that irrespective of the description of the commodity sold by the assessee as Aluminium Grill Section or Aluminium Grill, in the sale invoices, packing slips, bilty and insurance documents, the real product manufactured by the petitioner assessee is nothing but 'Metal Mesh' as the same, was produced by the process of slitting of Aluminium Metal Section/ Profiles and then expanding the same with the plant and machinery. In the slitting process, the Aluminium metal section/profile is simultaneously slit and stretched by a press. Further explaining the production process, he submitted that the Aluminium section/profile is passed through the machines with different dyes for slitting the metal according to the requirement of size and the dye contains cutters,which slit the metal in various dimensions for giving different shapes and sizes. After slitting the metal sections are expanded and final product converted through the process of expansion is Aluminium expanded 'metal mesh'. After slitting the metal sections are expanded and final product converted through the process of expansion is Aluminium expanded 'metal mesh'. He also submitted that these metal mesh are manufactured without any joint, welding etc. and Aluminium metal are used as anti dazzle screen, air filter, vents, window guard, screen, partition or grills etc. He also submitted that Aluminium Grill Section or 'Metal Mesh' manufactured by the petitioner in common parlance is known as 'Metal Mesh' or 'Aluminium Metal Mesh' or 'Aluminium Grill Section. He, therefore, justified the collection of VAT @ 4% under Entry 92 (8) of the Schedule IV of the VAT Act, 2003, which reads as under: "Entry No.92 Nuts, bolts, screws, fasteners, fitting for doors, windows and furniture including (1) hinges-butt, piano, narrow, tee. handles for locks, furniture handles, furniture knobs, drawer channel, furniture, fitting, furniture hinges, furniture catchers, (2) nails, rivets, cotter pins, staples, panel pins, blue cut taks, hob nails, starts, iron heels, bullock and horse shoes and nails (3) chains of all kinds, (4) all kinds of metal sections. including slotted angles, shelves and accessories, (5) rods, rails, channels and curtain fittings, (6) tower bolts, handles, aldrops, window stay, gate hook, door stopper, brackets, card clamp, clips, corners, washers, eyelets, hooks and eyes, hangers, hasps, pegs, pelmet fittings, sliding door fittings, stoppers, suspenders, springs, magic eyes, trolley wheels, pulleys and hold fasts (7) wire brushes, (8) wire mesh, metal mesh, wire netting and barbed wire." 9. On the other hand, Mr. V.K. Mathur, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue vehemently submitted that it is misnomer to call Aluminium Grill or Aluminium Grill Section manufactured by the petitioner assessee as 'Metal Mesh'. On the other hand, Mr. V.K. Mathur, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue vehemently submitted that it is misnomer to call Aluminium Grill or Aluminium Grill Section manufactured by the petitioner assessee as 'Metal Mesh'. He submitted that the word 'Mesh' necessarily involves the process of netting or weaving of wire or thread either metallic or non-metallic like plastic and without weaving or netting the Mesh cannot be manufactured and, therefore, Aluminium Grill, which is manufactured by the petitioner assessee by slitting and expanding in the present case cannot fall within the ambit and scope of 'Metal Mesh' and, therefore, it could not have been taxed @ 4% only under Entry 92.8 and in the absence of specific entry, the learned Assessing Authority as well as two appellate authorities below were perfectly justified in imposing the difference of tax of 8.5% as the goods in question, namely; Aluminium Grill fell in the Residuary Entry in Schedule V of the Rajasthan VAT Act. He also urged that the common parlance test applied in the present case with the help of documents produced by the assessee himself like sale invoices, packing slips, insurance documents, bilty etc. clearly show that the assessee has been describing these goods as Aluminium Grill Section or Aluminium Grill and, therefore, he could not change his stand and start describing the same as 'Metal Mesh' because these words found place in the Entry 92.8 with the introduction of Rajasthan VAT Act w.e.f 1.4.2006 in Schedule IV. He also submitted that Entry 92.8 has to be read ejusdum generis along with the other three words viz. Wire Mesh, Metal Mesh, Wire Netting and Barbed Wire and, therefore, the word 'Metal Mesh' will draw colour from these three other commodities included in Entry 92.8 from which the concept of wire netting and weaving is necessarily envisaged. 10. Learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Vinit Mathur also referred to various dictionary meanings to support his contention that word 'mesh' requires netting or weaving which the assessee in the present case admittedly does not carry out and altogether a different production process of slitting and expanding is employed by the assessee to manufacture Aluminium Grills which are used for different purpose mainly for protection of windows etc. and, therefore, Aluminium Grill which is not included specifically in Schedule IV and thus rate of tax of 4% could not be applied in the case of assessee and imposition of difference tax was perfectly justified. 11. Learned counsel for the Revenue also urged that even imposition of penalty, in the circumstances, was justified as the assessee deliberately changed his stand in the matter and the commodity which he through out described as Aluminium Grill or Aluminium Grill Section, he started calling the same as Metal Mesh merely to take advantage of lower 4% rate of tax. which was not applicable to it and, therefore, even the imposition of penalty was justified and since the appellate authorities below wrongly set aside the penalty under Section 61 of the Act, the revision petitions filed by the Revenue on the issue of penalty deserve to be allowed while the revision petitions filed by the Assessee deserves to be dismissed. 12. I have heard both the learned counsel at length and perused the material on record including the impugned orders, dictionaries & judgments cited at the bar. 13. As far as legal position is concerned that while interpreting the Entries in taxing statutes, the common parlance test or the trade parlance test has to be applied is beyond doubt and at the same time the golden rule of interpretation of taxing statutes that there is no equity about taxation and plain, strict and literal interpretation rather than the liberal or broad interpretation is also the guiding factor while dealing with the tax matters. 14. In Hindustan Poles Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta, reported in (2006) 145 STC 625 (SC) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when one particular item is covered by one specified entry then the Revenue is not permitted to travel to the residuary entry. The residuary entry is meant only for those categories of goods which clearly fall outside the ambit of specified entries. 15. In Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories v. Dy. Labour Commissioner, (2007) 5 SCC 281 , the Apex Court held that when an interpretation clause uses the word 'includes,' it is prima facie extensive. When it uses the word `means and includes,' it will afford an exhaustive explanation to the meaning which for the purpose of the Act must invariably be attached to the word or expression. 16. Labour Commissioner, (2007) 5 SCC 281 , the Apex Court held that when an interpretation clause uses the word 'includes,' it is prima facie extensive. When it uses the word `means and includes,' it will afford an exhaustive explanation to the meaning which for the purpose of the Act must invariably be attached to the word or expression. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indo International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., (1981) 47 STC 359 : (1981)3 SCR 294 observed that in interpreting items in statutes like the Excise Act or Sales Tax Acts, whose primary object was to raise revenue and for which purpose to classify diverse products, articles and substances, 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. "Justice Cameron of the Canadian Exchequer court in King v. Planter's Co., (1951) CLR (Ex) 122 and the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Two Hundred Chests of Tea (1824) 6 Led 128 emphasised that commercial understanding in respect of tariff items should be preferred, It was observed that the Legislature does not suppose our merchants to be naturalists or geologists, or botanists." (See also Shri Bharuch Coconut Trading Co. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad, (1992) Supp.1 SCC 298 , 17. Applying the dominant intention test, vis-a-vis, the aspect theory, the Apex Court in United Offset Process Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, (1989) Supp. 1 SCC 131 opined: ".... if there is no meaning attributed to the expressions used in the particular enacted statute then the items in the customs tariff should be judged and analysed on the basis of how these expressions are used in the trade or industry or in the market or, in other words, how these are dealt with by the people who deal in them, provided that there is a market for these types of goods. This principle is well known as classification on the basis of trade parlance. This is an accepted form of construction. This principle is well known as classification on the basis of trade parlance. This is an accepted form of construction. It is well-known principle that if the definition of a particular expression is not given, it must be understood in its popular or common sense viz., in the sense how that expression is used everyday by those who use or deal with those goods..." 18. In the case of Pardeep Aggarbatti, Ludhiana v. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in, (1997) 8 SCC 511 , the Apex Court has held that entires in the Schedules of sales tax and excise statutes list some articles separately and some articles are grouped together. When they are grouped together, each word in the entry draws colour from the other words therein. This is the principle of noscitur a sociis.The perfumery in Entry 16 (prior to 1979 amendment) of Schedule A to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 draws colour from the words "cosmetics" and "toilet goods" therein and so read, the word "perfumery" in the said Entry 16 can only refer to such articles of perfumery as are used as cosmetics and goods are upon the person. It has no application to "dhoop" and "aggarbatti." 19. The Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act was enacted in the year 2003 when countrywide all the States were shifting from State Sales Tax legislation to Value Added Tax system popularly known as VAT Regime. The classification of various commodities was adopted from earlier legislations, Central Excise classification based on HSN; classification of goods which is adopted in various developed countries and thus a well designed and defined and minute classification of goods was made in five Schedules attached with the Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003 and, therefore, by and large all commodities of which manufacture or trade takes place in the country were separately defined and included specifically in the said Schedules. Still some terms by their definition are of broad nature and, therefore, the question of interpretation as to whether the commodity which is not specifically mentioned or included in any of the Schedules can be so interpreted to be included in any particular item included in such Schedules or not and if not whether Schedule V containing Residuary Entry and providing for 12.5% tax has to be applied to such commodity in question. Again the legal principle that if a commodity can fall in any specific Entry, the Residuary Entry cannot be resorted to has to be kept in mind and on these legal principles there is no dispute or debate in the present case from the either side and, therefore, in the light of aforesaid legal principles, this Court would proceed to examine as to whether the commodity in question namely Aluminium Grill or Aluminium Grill Section manufactured by the assessee is taxable at 4% under Entry 92.8 of Schedule IV of the Act or at 12.5% in Schedule V containing Residuary Entry of the said Act. 20. The manufacturing process of manufacturing Aluminium Grill or Aluminium Grill Section, namely by slitting and expanding the Aluminium section, profiles or metal sections has already been explained above and the limited question is whether such `Aluminium Grill' can fall within the words 'Metal Mesh' along with `wire Mesh' and 'wire netting' and 'barbed wire' in Entry No.92.8 or not. 21. Some of the dictionary meaning of Mesh and Grill may be noticed here : Oxford Dictionaries Online defines Mesh as noun in the following terms: (1) material made of a network of wire or thread: mesh for fishing nets the spacing between the individual strands that form mesh: (2) an interlaced structure: As verb 'Mesh' has been defined as make or become entangled or entwined. Webster's Dictionary defines 'Mesh' as (i) one of the opening between threads or cords of a net, one of the similar spaces in a network-often used to designate screen size as the number of openings per linear inch; (ii) (a) the fabric of a net; (b) a woven, knit, or knotted material or open texture with evenly spaced holes; (c) an arrangement of inter locking metal links used specially for jewelry; (iii) an interlocking or intervening arrangement for construction. Oxford English Dictionary defines 'Mesh' as (i) material made of a network of wire or thread (ii) the spacing of strands of a net; (iii) a complex or restricting situation.Oxford Advanced learner's dictionary defines 'Mesh' as noun as (1) material made of threads of plastic rope or wire that are woven together like a net: wire mesh over the door of the cage (2) a complicated situation or system that it is difficult to escape from. The word 'Grill' has been defined in Webster's Dictionary as noun as (1) a grating forming barrier or screen; an ornamental one at the front end of an automobile: (ii) an opening covered with grille; grill - cooking utensils on parallel bar on which food is expressed (sic) to heat (as from charcoal or electricity); food i.e. broiled usually on a grill. Oxford English Dictionary defines 'Grill' as a noun as a grating or screen of metal bars or wires; grill (n) (i) a device on cooker that directs heat downwards for cooking food; (ii) a gridiron used for cooking food on an open fire; (iii) dish of food cooked using grill (n) a frame work of parallel cross bars that cover an opening.Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines 'Grill' as (1) the part of a cooker that directs heat downwards to cook food that is placed underneath it (2) a flat metal frame that you put food on to cook over a fire, (3) a dish of grilled food, especially meat, (4) a restaurant serving grilled food. 22. The word 'Wire', which is used in three of the descriptions in Entry 92.8 has been defined in the following manner: metal in the form of thin thread; a piece of this; a coil of copper wire, a wire rack/basket. 23. The Entry 92.4 and 92.8 were considered by this Court while considering the submissions made at the bar by learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Dinesh Mehta. It appears that Entry 92.4 including all kinds of metal sections, including slotted angles, shelves and accessories would not apply in the present case as Metal Sections are purchalsed by the petitioner as raw material from M/s Hindalco Industries Limited and what is manufactured by the petitioner is 'Aluminium Grill Sections' or 'Aluminium Grills' and, therefore, Entry No. 92.4 would not apply to the present case and that is why learned counsel for the petitioner assessee rightly did not press for including the commodity in question in Entry 92.4. 24. Now coming to Entry 92.8 on which full emphasis was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner as according to him 'Aluminu . 24. Now coming to Entry 92.8 on which full emphasis was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner as according to him 'Aluminu . Grill Sections' or 'Aluminium Grills' manufactured by the petitioner assesses would be covered by Entry 'Metal Mesh' is also not very convincing because the word 'Mesh' necessarily includes the process of weaving or netting of wires with specified sized holes in between and that is why the word 'Metal Mesh' has been included in Entry 92.8 along with wire mesh, wire netting and barbed wire as all these categories of goods definitely include process of netting or weaving of wires. Since wires can be metallic or non-metallic like plastic also, the word 'Metal Mesh' has been separately included in the Entry 92.8. The word 'wire mesh' in Entry 92.8 includes both 'metallic wire mesh' or 'non-metallic wire mesh' and, therefore, the words 'metal mesh' is a further specie of genus 'wire mesh'. Reading of entry 'metal mesh' in ejusdum generis' with other three categories of Entry 92.8 does not leave any manner of doubt that 'Aluminium Grill Sections' or Aluminium Grills' manufactured and sold by the petitioner assessee would not be covered by 'Metal Mesh' included in Entry 92.8. Entry 92 itself included so many items which are used in furniture industries for fitting of doors and windows in houses and are generally saleable at the hardware shops dealing with such hardware items. It may be that even Aluminium Grills manufactured and sold by the petitioner assessee or its sister concern may also be sold at such Hardware stores but that would not determine whether such commodity is covered by this taxable entry or not. Such sister concern, the retailer M/s. PN. Agrawal & Co. may also be getting benefit of input tax credit of differential tax also paid by the present manufacturer assessee, but that is not relevant to decide the controversy in hand. 25. The common parlance test or trade parlance test when applied in the present case, the assessee himself has been describing the commodity in question as 'Aluminium Grill Sections' and 'Aluminium Grills' in his sale invoices, packing slips, insurance documents and bills and bilty including the statement of partner of said firm himself. No other evidence than the own admission of assessee itself goes in favour of Revenue in the present case. No other evidence than the own admission of assessee itself goes in favour of Revenue in the present case. It is only when VAT Act was introduced w.e.f. 1.4.2006 that in order to get the benefit of lower rate of tax of 4% applicable in Schedule IV of the VAT Act, the assessee changed its description of goods from Aluminium Grill or Aluminium Grill Section to 'Metal Mesh'. Such a change of description has neither changed the production process nor the understanding of people dealing in the trade or common man and Aluminium Grills of different sizes or shapes with holes would remain the 'Aluminium Grills' or 'Aluminium Grill Sections' but would not become 'Metal Mesh' merely because there are holes in the same created by the process of slitting and expanding. 26. As held above, since the word 'Mesh' necessarily implies and included the process of netting or weaving of the wires which may be of different widths but since no such weaving or netting process is admittedly carried out by the assessee in its manufacturing process, it is not possible to include 'Aluminium Grills' or 'Aluminium Grill Sections' manufactured by the assessee within the ambit and scope of words 'Metal Mesh' in Entry 92.8 of Schedule IV along with words wire mesh, wire netting and barbed wire. The same has to be therefore held to be taxable in the residuary entry @ 12.5% in Schedule V of the Act. 27. Even if two views were possible, the benefit could be given to the assessee but, it does not seem to this Court that two views for interpretation of those goods and apply the Entry No. 92.8 are possible. The commodity in question was described by the assessee right from the beginning as 'Aluminium Grills' or 'Aluminium Grill Sections' and never the words 'Metal Mesh' occurred to them or so applied in the relevant documents during the contemporary period prior to 1.4.2006, when finding the Entry 92.8 useful and attracting lesser rate of tax. the assessee shifted its stand and changed the description from 'Aluminium Grills' or 'Aluminium Grill Sections' to 'Metal Mesh'. Such a change of stand, which may or may not be bona fide, does not change the legal position for the assessee. 28. the assessee shifted its stand and changed the description from 'Aluminium Grills' or 'Aluminium Grill Sections' to 'Metal Mesh'. Such a change of stand, which may or may not be bona fide, does not change the legal position for the assessee. 28. Therefore, the authorities below concurrently and rightly held in the case of the assessee that the commodity in question could not fall under any specific entry particularly Entry 92.8 of Schedule IV of the Act and, therefore, the same could not be taxed @ 4% and was liable to be taxed @ 12.5% under the Residuary Entry in Schedule V of the Act. Such concurrent findings, therefore, deserve to be confirmed and revision petitions filed by the assessee to this extent deserve to be dismissed. 29. So far as question of penalty under Section 61 of concerned, the appellate authorities below appear to be justified in holding that the penalty under Section 61 of the Act could not be imposed upon the assessee since the assessee had disclosed all the relevant particulars in its returns and relevant documents, vouchers and Books of Accounts and has not withheld any vital information from the Department nor furnished any inaccurate particular to the Assessing Authority, which is sine qua non for imposition of penalty under Section 61 of the Act. Mere raising of contention by the assessee that it was liable to pay lesser rate of tax of 4% treating the commodity as 'Metal Mesh', which contention has not found favour at all with the Departmental Authorities or even this court, it does not necessarily mean that the assessee was guilty of concealing any material information or furnishing inaccurate particulars in its returns. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the appellate authorities under Section 61 of Act deserves to be upheld and for this reason the revision petitions filed by the Revenue are also liable to be dismissed. 30. Accordingly, the revision petitions filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are hereby dismissed. Costs easy.Both Revision Dismissed. *******