JUDGMENT MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. The present appeal is filed directing against the judgment dated July 9, 2010 passed by the Second Bench of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai. In an appeal, the Tribunal accepted the case of the respondents - manufacturers and held that margarine is hydrogenated vegetable oil and therefore, it is classifiable under Schedule C, entry 100 meant for "vanaspati" (hydrogenated vegetable oil). Margarine is a product manufactured by the respondent used for cooking especially for bakery products. Different vegetable oils, viz., coconut oil, groundnut oil, mahua oil, maize (corn) oil, mango kernel fat, mustard oil, sunflower oil, palm oil, etc., can be used to get the margarine. Margarine is obtained by hydrogenation and emulsification. In the present appeal substantial question of law involved is : "Whether the margarine is classified at Schedule C, entry 100 or Schedule C, entry 107(11)(F) liable at four per cent of tax or entry E1 and taxable at 12.5 per cent from February 1, 2008 under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 ?" The respondents are the manufacturers of margarine under the brand name lotus margarine 15 kg., golden seal margarine 15 kg. and silver seal margarine 15 kg. All these products though named differently is margarine. The Commissioner of Sales Tax by its order dated February 22, 2008 held that margarine being a food item was liable to tax at four per cent covered by Schedule C, entry No. 107(11)(F) from February 1, 2006 to January 31, 2008 and at 12.5 per cent with effect from February 1, 2008 in terms of Schedule E, entry 1 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act of 2002. Margarine was earlier covered under the Act by Schedule C, entry 107(11)(FF) attracting tax at four per cent for the period from February 1, 2006 (the date on which VAT came into force) to January 31, 2008. In the present case, Tribunal held that the margarine manufactured by the respondents is classifiable under Schedule C, entry 100 taxable at four per cent. Validity of the order of the Tribunal is challenged in this appeal. We heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Revenue and also respondents at length. The submissions of both the parties can be summarised in brief. Validity of the order of the Tribunal is challenged in this appeal. We heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Revenue and also respondents at length. The submissions of both the parties can be summarised in brief. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that margarine is made out of hydrogenated oil and so it is neither vegetable oil nor a vegetable hydrogenated oil, i.e., vanaspati. Vanaspati is made after hydrogenation of the vegetable oil and vanaspati is included in Schedule C, entry 100 and so it is taxable at four per cent. Though vanaspati and margarine both are obtained by the process of hydrogenation, margarine needs to undergo further process of emulsification. Vanaspati is in grainy form and margarine is pasty. While manufacturing bakery margarine, water and teel oil is added as per PFA (Prevention of Food Adulteration) requirement. Margarine though is manufactured from vegetable oil, it ceases to be hydrogenated vegetable oil in common parlance after conversion. The chemical properties of vanaspati and margarine are different and vanaspati is not used as a bakery product. It was argued that therefore, though in the case of Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool [1960] 11 STC 827 (SC), hydrogenated groundnut oil which is commonly called as vanaspati is held as groundnut oil within the meaning of rule 18(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, vanaspati is given a separate entry in the Maharashtra Sales Tax Act as Schedule C, entry 100 as a hydrogenated vegetable oil and therefore, ratio in Tungabhadra [1960] 11 STC 827 (SC) is not relevant in this case. Margarine is totally different product from the vegetable oil and from hydrogenated vegetable oil, i.e., vanaspati in respect of its properties and composition. While interpreting entries in taxing statutes for calculating taxes, common parlance test is to be applied and not chemical or laboratory test. Margarine is totally different product from the vegetable oil and from hydrogenated vegetable oil, i.e., vanaspati in respect of its properties and composition. While interpreting entries in taxing statutes for calculating taxes, common parlance test is to be applied and not chemical or laboratory test. In common parlance, the margarine is known as vanaspati, i.e., hydrogenated vanaspati oil or not, is to be answered and the Tribunal has failed to appreciate this point especially as per the ratio laid down in Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer reported in [1961] 12 STC 286 (SC) and in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. reported in [2009] 237 ELT 225 (SC), wherein it was held that wherever the term is not defined in the statutes, common parlance theory is to be adopted. Margarine is not defined in the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. The individual products molecular structure or composition is also to be considered. The addition of moisture or water and fatty acid by emulsification, essentially results a material change and product margarine is a distinct commodity from vanaspati, a hydrogenated vegetable oil. Hence it was rightly decided by the Commissioner of Sales Tax (CST) that it falls under entry E1 and taxable at 12.5 per cent. Per contra, it was argued that margarine contains the similar ingredients of vanaspati which is obtained by process of hydrogenation and further emulsification. The emulsifying agents, anti-oxidant, salt, water, fatty acid, do not change the basic component and nature of hydrogenated vegetable oil. These agents are mixed to make margarine usable for the purpose of bakery products which helps to make the bakery items more crispy and fluffy. Vanaspati and margarine both are semi solid substance resembling butter in consistency. It was argued that as per the Vegetable Oil Products Control Order, 1947, margarine could not be labelled and marketed as vegetable ghee (vanaspati) in view of the specification laid down in the Vegetable Oil Products Control Order, 1947 of Government of India. One of the conditions is that vegetable oil shall not contain moisture exceeding 0.25 per cent and therefore, the product which was marketed as "saras margarine" where water percentage from five per cent to 15 per cent, cannot be marketed as vanaspati. It was submitted that vanaspati is called as Indian margarine because of its use, contents and nature. The opinion of scientist Dr. It was submitted that vanaspati is called as Indian margarine because of its use, contents and nature. The opinion of scientist Dr. D. N. Bhowmick who is working as a professor and head of the Department of Oils, Oleochemicals and Surfactants Technology of Mumbai University, Department of Chemical Technology (UDC), Matunga, Mumbai, is produced to explain the issue. Professor Bhowmick has discussed the chemical composition of hydrogenated vegetable oils and margarine and has opined as follows : (A) Molecular structure of triglycerides in edible oil, vanaspati and margarine are same. (B) Margarine is vanaspati (hydrogenated vegetable oil) with about 12-16 per cent water and other additives. (C) Edible oils, HVO and margarine can be interchangeably used as cooking medium. Reliance is placed by the respondents on Tungabhadra [1960] 11 STC 827 (SC), Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, [1961] 12 STC 286 (SC), Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in [1997] 106 STC 214 (SC) on the point that the onus is on the Revenue to prove that an item falls in a particular entry. He also relied on the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. reported in [2005] 140 STC 125, wherein the Supreme Court has interpreted the word "made up" for the purpose of classification. (Made up goods and non-made up goods). The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that facts in State of Kerala v. Aluva Sugar Agency reported in [2007] 8 VST 726 (Ker), are distinguishable. In the said case a margarine was classified under entry 19 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act which deals with oil, edible or inedible oil and margarine. It was held that bakery margarine is not edible oil covered by the notification and so the concession which was given to edible oil was not given to margarine. It was argued that this case is not applicable in Maharashtra because in Kerala margarine was put in the category of oil. However, it is prayed margarine under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act is not put in the category of oil, so it is to be included in C100 wherein vanaspati is differently classified. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that margarine which is sold by Kamani Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd., is taxable at four per cent. However, it is prayed margarine under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act is not put in the category of oil, so it is to be included in C100 wherein vanaspati is differently classified. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that margarine which is sold by Kamani Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd., is taxable at four per cent. M/s. Velani and Co., Kamani Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd., Margarine camy. Margarine produced by Godrej Hershby Ltd., Margarine which is also taxable at four per cent VAT. He relied on Merind Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra reported in [2004] 136 STC 462 (Bom) on the point that if at all it is a settled view, it is not to be disturbed. Vanaspati is an independent product made out of vegetable oil and margarine is basically a western product made out of vegetable oil. Thus both the products originate from edible vegetable oil and both the products have to undergo process of hydrogenation of the vegetable oil. Emulsification is further process which is carried out to obtain margarine. Vanaspati is popularly known as Dalda ghee and it has replaced the pure ghee as it is cheap compared to pure ghee and it is a supplement to edible oil. Margarine is mainly used for bakery products rather in the western countries bakery products, i.e., bread, biscuits, donuts, muffins are the main food items used everyday. Margarine makes the food item crispy and fluffy. Vanaspati and margarine both are used for the purpose of cooking and both are used as replacement of ghee and vegetable oils. Though vanaspati is grainy and margarine is pasty, both are semi solid white/creamish oil based substances. Due to 20 per cent antioxidents, permitted emulsifying agents and water contents in margarine the desired results of baked product is facilitated. It was argued by the learned counsel for the Revenue that under the Central Excise Tariff Act, margarine is covered by excise heading (1517) whereas, vanaspati is included under excise heading (1516) under the description of animal or vegetable fats and oils and their fractions particularly or wholly hydrogenated. The learned counsel though endeavoured to point out that vanaspati and margarine are classified differently under the Central Excise Act; we cannot accept such classification under the Central Excise Tariff Act as it is to be independently decided under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act. The learned counsel though endeavoured to point out that vanaspati and margarine are classified differently under the Central Excise Act; we cannot accept such classification under the Central Excise Tariff Act as it is to be independently decided under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act. For better and clear understanding of the ingredients, composition and the nature of the margarine, we rely on the opinion of the expert, i.e., a certificate given by Dr. Bhowmick, wherein he has stated that margarine is a food in plastic form or liquid emulsion containing not less than 80 per cent fat. "Aqueous phase ingredient is water and milk products". Oil, vanaspati and margarine, all are essentially mixed triglycerides of the fatty acids. Oil and vanaspati contained moisture only in trace quantities whereas, margarine being a formulated product contained about 12 to 16 per cent moisture and other additives. Margarine is formulated using hydrogenated vegetable oil and essentially consists of five operations : (1) emulsification, (2) cooling, (3) working, (4) resting and (5) packaging and margarine is vanaspati with about 12 to 16 per cent water with other additives. We take into account the fact that the margarine produced by other manufacturers, viz., Kamani or Godrej is taxable at four per cent so under principle of parity margarine which is produced by the respondents is rightly made taxable at four per cent by the Tribunal by its judgment dated July 9, 2010. We would like to point out that during the period 2006-08 after introduction of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, margarine produced by the respondents was classified in Schedule C, entry 100 as vanaspati and was taxable at four per cent till the decision of the A. O. Since long period, view taken by the Tribunal holds the field so we fail to understand what made A.O. to change his view. We place reliance on the judgment in the case of Merind Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra reported in [2004] 136 STC 462 (Bom), that once a particular view is taken by the authority, it should not be disturbed. Thus we hold that the view taken by the Tribunal that margarine is vanaspati and it is to be classified under Schedule C, entry 100 and taxable at four per cent is a legal and correct view and cannot be faulted out.