JUDGMENT MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the order dated August 2, 2008 passed by the Second Bench of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal at Mumbai ("MSTT", for short) by which it was held that nutralite table margarine is classifiable under Schedule C, entry 102 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act of 2002 and therefore, it is taxable at the rate of four per cent. In the present appeal, the following question is required to be answered : "Whether the product, nutralite table margarine, manufactured by the respondent - assessee is a vegetable oil covered under Schedule C, entry 100 or Schedule C, entry 102 or not ?" The respondents are assessees engaged in the business of pharmaceutical and re-selling of pharmaceutical products for medical usage and also used by the public in general. The respondent - assessee manufactures and sells table margarine under the brand name of nutralite table margarine. The respondent - assessee under section 56(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 applied to the Commissioner of Sales Tax for determination of the tax rate applicable to their products. The respondent - assessee submitted determination of disputed question (DDQ) application seeking that nutralite table margarine is a margarine-vanaspati and it is to be covered by Schedule C, entry 100. However, the Commissioner of Sales Tax while deciding DDQ Application No. 11/2006/Adm2/40/B1 by order dated October 22, 2007 held that nutralite table margarine would be classified under Schedule E, entry 1 and hence, would attract tax at the rate of 12.5 per cent. The assessee thereafter challenged the said order before the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai and the Tribunal while setting aside the said order held that it falls under Schedule C, entry No. 102 and hence it would attract tax at the rate of four per cent. Hence, this appeal. The learned counsel Mr. Sonpal appearing for the appellants submitted that nutralite is not prepared by hydrogenation but it is a separate product made by emulsification of water, salt and vegetable oil. He submitted that entry No. 100 of the Schedule under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act of 2002 is of vanaspati (hydrogenated vegetable oil) entry 102 vegetable oil including gingili, castor and bran oil. Nutralite table margarine is a separate entity, different from the vegetable oil. He submitted that entry No. 100 of the Schedule under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act of 2002 is of vanaspati (hydrogenated vegetable oil) entry 102 vegetable oil including gingili, castor and bran oil. Nutralite table margarine is a separate entity, different from the vegetable oil. It is a separate product emerges out of process of emulsification. The learned counsel has submitted that palm oil is a raw material used for making nutralite table margarine. Nutralite is 80 per cent of vegetable oil. He submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding nutralite table margarine as vegetable oil and taxable at the rate of four per cent only. The learned counsel has submitted that nutralite margarine is not used for baking but used as a spread on the eatables. While deciding whether commodity falls under the category of entry 100 or 102 of Schedule C or Schedule E, one has to consider predominant use and ancillary use of the product, i.e., margarine. He argued that if one goes to the shop and places order for vegetable oil, nobody will give nutralite table margarine for vegetable oil. Vegetable oil is not directly consumable or edible. The learned counsel in order to buttress his submissions, relied on common parlance test and reversible test. He elaborated that if nutralite table margarine is gained after process of emulsification on the palm oil, it cannot be reverted back to palm oil. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - assessee, submitted that nutralite table margarine is covered by Schedule C, entry 100. Vanaspati is a hydrogenated vegetable oil which is taxable at four per cent. Margarine is obtained by the process of hydrogenation and emulsification, yet it does not lose its character of a vegetable oil. Nutralite table margarine is made salty to add taste and to make it usable. The learned counsel has submitted that nutralite table margarine is also a margarine which can be used for baking and cooking. Further it is specially processed to reduce the percentage of bad cholesterol and preferred by health conscious people. It is a vegetable oil, having more nutritious value. In support of his submissions, learned counsel Mr. Thakar relied on number of rulings. The learned counsel Mr. Further it is specially processed to reduce the percentage of bad cholesterol and preferred by health conscious people. It is a vegetable oil, having more nutritious value. In support of his submissions, learned counsel Mr. Thakar relied on number of rulings. The learned counsel Mr. Thakar on the point of product maintaining the same identity after the hydrogenation of the oil or the process on other products, relied on Tungabhadra Industries Ltd., Kurnool v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool reported in [1960] 11 STC 827 and Shri Chitta Ranjan Saha v. State of Tripura reported in [1990] 79 STC 51 (Gauhati). For the test of reversibility, he relied on Punjab Aromatics v. State of Kerala reported in [2008] 14 VST 519 (SC) and Dakini Health Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra in Appeal No. 6 of 2001 decided on March 5, 2005. He argued that a test of predominant component (palm oil is a majority factor in margarine) be applied and for which he relied on Shreeji Traders v. State of Gujarat reported in [1992] 86 STC 27 (Guj). He submitted that the product is a margarine though the manufacturer calls it nutralite table margarine. Its true character is not lost so the liability at 12.5 per cent cannot be determined and order passed by MSTT is legal. He relied on C.C. Mahajan and Co. v. State of Bombay reported in [1958] 9 STC 133 (Bom). He submitted that if the margarine is classified under Schedule C, entry 102 since many years then this view cannot be disturbed. He relied on Merind Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra reported in [2004] 136 STC 462 (Bom) and Mauri Yeast India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. reported in [2008] 14 VST 259 (SC). To decide classification of the nutralite table margarine, it is necessary to answer first whether nutralite table margarine is a different commodity than margarine or not. Margarine is a semi-solid substance resembling butter in consistency and appearance, 80 per cent edible vegetable oil and 20 per cent water. While nutralite consists of 80 per cent palm oil, 20 per cent fatty acid, salt water and skimmed milk. Vanaspati (hydrogenated vegetable oil) is covered under Schedule C, entry 100. Vanaspati is a refined edible vegetable oil subjected to process of hydrogenation. Any other product of edible oil if not obtained by hydrogenation cannot be covered by Schedule C, entry 100. Vanaspati (hydrogenated vegetable oil) is covered under Schedule C, entry 100. Vanaspati is a refined edible vegetable oil subjected to process of hydrogenation. Any other product of edible oil if not obtained by hydrogenation cannot be covered by Schedule C, entry 100. Nutralite table margarine is not obtained by hydrogenation but it emerges out of emulsification. Schedule C, entry 102 covers vegetable edible oil. Nutralite table margarine is made out of palm oil which is a vegetable oil, that means nutralite itself is not a vegetable oil. Table margarine is a vegetable oil based product. Therefore, a reversible test can be successfully applied. It is argued that table margarine if heated becomes oil and again gets converted in solid stage after chilling. Argument was advanced on the basis of test of reversibility and on the basis of cases in Punjab Aromatics v. State of Kerala reported in [2008] 14 VST 519 (SC) where it is held that : "The 'test of irreversibility' is an important criterion to ascertain as to when a given process amounts to manufacture. In the present case that test is not satisfied. In the present case, the Tribunal has examined the process and has come to the conclusion that by adding impurities to the sandalwood oil the product could become red oil once again. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that red oil and sandalwood oil are two separate and distinct products as held by the High Court overruling the judgment of the Tribunal." In Dakini Health Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra in Appeal No. 6 of 2001 decided on March 5, 2005 peanut butter and sesame butter was the product in question and the paste of peanut and sesame are used to spread on bread and also used in hotels. It was held that utility, character composition of the product processed and the product emerged after the processing remains the same. No material change has taken place in the product as nothing was abstracted and nothing was added. In State of Maharashtra v. Ahura Enterprises S.T.A. No. 9 of 2001 dated August 22, 2003 of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, it was held that preparing a paste from fresh ginger and garlic by grinding them together and adding salt and preservatives and packing it in a airtight pouches and make it edible article does not change the essential characteristic. It was held that when the court is concerned with edible articles, some of the criteria found by the apex court are whether the entry article is a genus of which the test article is a species; whether the essential characteristics of the entry article are still to be found in the new article; whether there has been addition of external agents thereby making it different; and whether there has been a process of transformation of such a nature and extent as to have resulted in the production of a new article of such a nature and extent as to have resulted in the production of a new article as commonly understood in the market where it is dealt with. In Shreeji Traders v. State of Gujarat reported in [1992] 86 STC 27 (Guj) in which the Division Bench has applied the test of predominant and held that blended yarn consisting of 80 per cent to 85 per cent cotton yarn and 15 per cent to 20 per cent of viscose, the sale of such yarn by the applicant - assessee was regarded as sale of cotton yarn because it was accepted that cotton yam has not lost its identity and characteristic due to imposing of 15 per cent to 20 per cent viscose yarn and the test of predominant component was applied to fix the entry in the Schedule of the commodity. We have considered all the rulings. The tests are guiding principles which enable the authority to draw a logical inference leading to conclusion in respect of disputed question of fact and law. It is never expected that the product should pass all the tests or all the guiding principles should be made applicable to it, rather the most important and paramount test of fixing the classification and the entry of the commodity under the VAT is whether the product in issue is a distinct marketable commodity or not. A commodity should be distinguishable from its mother product in its character, ingredients, nature, form, look, use, pack, etc., and secondly, it is to be recognized as an independent separate commodity in the market. The term marketable connotes two aspects, i.e., firstly the product should be saleable in the market and secondly it should establish its own identity as a commodity in the eyes of the consumer. The term marketable connotes two aspects, i.e., firstly the product should be saleable in the market and secondly it should establish its own identity as a commodity in the eyes of the consumer. Thus though one or two guiding principles may be applicable to a product but if the product refuses to merge into its original product and establishes its own identity in the market then it is treated as a distinct marketable commodity. Due to emulsification, a semi-solid product emerges out of a palm oil and though a test of reversibility and predominant component is applicable to it, other 20 per cent ingredients, i.e., water, fatty acid, milk powder and salt, undoubtedly transform the product as a distinct marketable commodity as it severes itself from its family of vegetable oil. In Shri Chitta Ranjan Saha v. State of Tripura reported in [1990] 79 STC 51 (Gauhati) DDQ before the court was whether pea-gravels fall within the category of goods described as metals, stone chips, any other products or sub-products arising out of bricks or stones. In the said judgment, the Division Bench explained different principles which are used as touchstone, common parlance rule, trade or commercial parlance rule, common sense rule of interpretation and the user test and it was held that application of the principles will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. No test or tests can be said to be applicable to all cases. It was also held that if two views are possible regarding classification of certain goods, the benefit must go to the tax-payer. If a tax-payer seeks advantage, which was not intended by the Legislature but to which he was entitled on a construction of the statute he must be given that advantage. Usability of a product cannot be a sole factor to decide its classification : Margarine is used for baking, cooking and nutralite is used for cooking and as a spread. It was argued that vegetable oil and margarine is also directly consumed by some people with chatni (spices) and spread on khakara and therefore, vegetable oil nutralite should fall in the category of margarine. It was argued that vegetable oil and margarine is also directly consumed by some people with chatni (spices) and spread on khakara and therefore, vegetable oil nutralite should fall in the category of margarine. In Mysore Agro Service Centre v. State of Karnataka reported in [1993] 90 STC 401 (Karn), while deciding the question whether lime is an item fallen under chemicals vide entry No. 79 of the Second Schedule or whether it is a pesticide falling under entry 117 of the Second Schedule, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held as follows : "An article may be subjected to a tax. If tax has to be levied depending upon the purpose for which it is purchased, the Revenue may have to examine individual cases before deciding as to how the particular goods should be treated for the levy of tax. Same article may be subjected to different rates of tax under the Act depending upon the purpose for which the goods were purchased by different classes of consumers. That cannot be the legislative intention at all. The intention of the Legislature seems to levy the same, particular rate of tax, in respect of sales transactions pertaining to a particular goods as enumerated in the Schedules to the Act." Respondent - manufacturer of nutralite claimed that their product is nothing but a margarine which is used for spread and therefore, they labelled it as nutralite table margarine. For the purpose of classification in the Schedule of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, it is immaterial how the product is advertised, under what name and title the commodity is marketed by the manufacturer. Not the label but the contents, ingredients in the product and its nature and form are required to be considered whether it is a distinct marketable commodity or not. In C.C. Mahajan and Co. v. State of Bombay reported in [1958] 9 STC 133 (Bom), the articles before the Division Bench were toilet articles and soaps. It was held that "... In C.C. Mahajan and Co. v. State of Bombay reported in [1958] 9 STC 133 (Bom), the articles before the Division Bench were toilet articles and soaps. It was held that "... what a manufacturer calls an article does not determine its true character or his liability to tax under the Sales Tax Act; and it is only the character of the article that attracts the tax and not the name by which it is known in the market ..." Similar view is taken in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay v. La Bela Products reported in [1985] 59 STC 221 (Bom), when the auto sticking bindies were sold under the name of beauty spots as toilet articles and they fall within the entry in respect of kumkum, viz., entry 32 of Schedule A of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The learned counsel for the Revenue/appellant draw our attention to the affidavit dated January 27, 2011 filed by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, in which it was stated that Amul Lite which is manufactured by Amul and marketed by Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., is taxed at 12.5 per cent and under Schedule E, entry 1 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act and nutralite is also manufactured by Amul. It is a similar product of Amul Lite by the respondents. For better understanding it is beneficial to reproduce a comparative table of ingredients nutralite and Amul Lite. Product Ingredients Nutralite Edible vegetable oils, water common salt, skimmed milk powder, emulsifiers and stabilizers, (E 471, E 322), class II preservatives (E 202, E 200), starch, se uestering agent (E 385), antioxidants (E 319), vitamin A not less than 30 IU/g vitamin D 2 IU/g vitamin E 0.03 mg/g - Contains natural colours (E160a) and added flavour (nature identical flavouring substances) Amul Lite Refined vegetable oils, milk fat, common salt, skimmed milk powder, emulsifiers (E 322), stabilizer (E 471), class II preservative (E 202), acidity regulator (E 330), antioxidants (E 319), vitamin not less than 30 IU/g and Vitamin D not less than 2 IU/g. - Contains natural colours (E 160b) and natural and nature identical flavouring substances. Amul Delicious is also a product of Amul marketed by Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., which is also spread and it falls under entry E1 and it is held liable to tax at 12.5 per cent. Amul Delicious is also a product of Amul marketed by Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., which is also spread and it falls under entry E1 and it is held liable to tax at 12.5 per cent. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the business audit/assessment of Amul Delicious is not yet complete in respect of the said dealer after April 1, 2005, i.e., the date when the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act came into force and it was submitted that the appropriate tax will be recovered after assessment of the Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., in due course. The learned counsel Mr. Thaker has relied on two judgments on the point that a different view would not be introduced which may disturb the settled existing position, which may lead confusion and chaos, i.e., Merind Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra reported in [2004] 136 STC 462 (Bom) and Mauri Yeast India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. reported in [2008] 14 VST 259 (SC). It was also argued that when two views are possible, one which favours the assessee should be adopted. However, in the present case, no such settled view was taken in respect of nutralite. In the present case palm oil is subjected to the process of emulsification and the resultant product that emerges is nutralite table margarine. Admittedly, table margarine is considered to be a distinct marketable commodity under the Central Excise Act. The fact that the said product is exempted from payment of Central excise duty would not mean that the nutralite table margarine is not manufactured by the appellant. Moreover, unlike palm oil, the nutralite table margarine is used as a bread spread which clearly shows that a distinct product is manufactured. Vegetable oil falling under heading Schedule C, entry 100 when subjected to the process of hydrogenation, the resultant product is classified under heading Schedule C, entry 102 as hydrogenated vegetable oil. Hydrogenated vegetable oil when subjected to the process of emulsification, margarine is obtained. The fact that the appellant instead of using hydrogenated vegetable oil has used palm oil as the basic ingredient in manufacturing nutralite table margarine, it cannot be said that the product manufactured by the appellant is a vegetable oil covered under Schedule C, entry 100 or hydrogenated vegetable oil covered under heading Schedule C, entry 102. The fact that the appellant instead of using hydrogenated vegetable oil has used palm oil as the basic ingredient in manufacturing nutralite table margarine, it cannot be said that the product manufactured by the appellant is a vegetable oil covered under Schedule C, entry 100 or hydrogenated vegetable oil covered under heading Schedule C, entry 102. Accordingly, we hold that the nutralite table margarine manufactured by the appellant is classified under the residuary entry under heading E1 and not under heading Schedule C, entry 100 as held by the MSTT. The question raised in the appeal is answered accordingly with no order as to costs.