Judgment :- Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. All these are revision petitions filed by the assessee Company, which is later taken over by M/s.Hindustan Unilever Limited. Revisions filed are against KGST assessments for the years 2002-03 to 2004-05 and against CST assessment for the year 2003-04. The common issue involved in the revisions filed against KGST assessments is with regard to rate of tax on the product sold under the name Domex, which is used to clean and disinfect toilet commodes. During hearing, learned counsel Shri.Madhu Radhakrishnan appearing for the petitioner produced label and leaflets pertaining to the product. The case of the petitioner is that the product is not covered by any of the entries in the First Schedule to the KGST Act, and so much so, it should be assessed at 8% as an unclassified item in terms of the residuary entry to the Schedule. The case of the Department is that the product is essentially a cleaning agent falling under Entry 51 of the First Schedule to the KGST Act, and so much so, it was assessed at 12% under that entry, which is confirmed in two level appeals by the first appellate authority as well as by the Tribunal. In these revision petitions the petitioner challenges the classification accepted by the Tribunal. 2. The only question to be considered is whether the item falls under entry 51 and if not necessarily it has to be consigned to the residuary entry under entry 177 which provides for rate of tax at 8% on all other goods not coming under any of the specific entries of Schedule I or Schedule II of the Act. For easy reference we extract hereunder entry 51 of the First Schedule. "Entry 51, First Schedule:- Detergent powder, flakes and liquids and all kinds of cleaning powder and liquids and laundry brightners." Referring to the product label, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Domex is basically Sodium Hypochlorite, which is a disinfectant used to kill bacteria and other germs in toilet commodes. On going through the product description, we notice that the product is essentially a chemical and acts as a disinfectant in as much as it claims to kill germs, bacteria etc. and special precautions are suggested against possible misuse by children and consequent health hazards. 3. On going through the product description, we notice that the product is essentially a chemical and acts as a disinfectant in as much as it claims to kill germs, bacteria etc. and special precautions are suggested against possible misuse by children and consequent health hazards. 3. Learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent referred to the very same product description wherein the assessee has simultaneously claimed that the product is a cleaning agent and the pictures show commodes after cleaning with the liquid as DOMEX CLEAN. There is no dispute that Domex is very much a cleaning agent, and when used to clean toilet commodes it acts as a cleaning agent cum disinfectant. The question therefore to be considered is whether the property of a cleaning agent as a disinfectant takes it outside the above entry. The scheme of the KGST Act is to levy tax on goods specified in the Schedules at the rates prescribed thereunder. However, goods which are not covered by any specific entry will be taxed at the rate prescribed in residuary entry. It can be noticed from the description and enumeration of goods under various entries that several entries are residuary in nature covering specified items and goods similar to those specifically stated. 4. On going through Entry 51 of the First Schedule, we find that the same broadly covers three categories of goods namely detergents, cleaning agents and laundry brightners. So far as detergents are concerned, the entry covers detergent in all forms i.e. powder, flakes and liquids. So far as cleaning agents are concerned, the entry is very wide covering all kinds of cleaning materials in powder and liquid forms. Admittedly, the assessee's product is in liquid form and it is used as a cleaning agent though it also serves the purpose of disinfecting the item or area cleaned. Obviously all cleaning agents in powder and liquid forms with or without disinfectant are covered by Entry 51. Assessee's product claimed in the product description produced in Court is very much a cleaning agent because on washing with it toilet commodes and wash basins look absolutely clean, sparkling & shining. In our view, the additional feature or advantage of the product to act as a disinfectant along with the main use as a cleaning agent does not affect the product identity as a cleaning material. In our view, the additional feature or advantage of the product to act as a disinfectant along with the main use as a cleaning agent does not affect the product identity as a cleaning material. We therefore hold that the product in effect is a cleaning agent cum disinfectant and is squarely covered by Entry 51. We therefore uphold the findings of the Tribunal and reject the revisions on this ground. 5. The additional issue raised in S.T.Rev.No.131/2010, which is for the assessment year 2004-05, is regarding the addition of Rs.20 lakhs, which is reduced to Rs.15 lakhs by the Tribunal. The addition is on account of non-production of all delivery notes issued to the assessee. Here again, we feel the addition is seen based on estimation of turnover for missing delivery notes. However, considering the ground for addition, we reduce it to Rs.10 lakhs. 6. The additional issue raised in S.T.Rev.No.132/2010, which is for the year 2002-03, is with regard to addition of Rs.6,67,200/-. Learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the addition is made solely on technical flow in brining goods with defective records for which penalty of Rs.46,037/- was levied under Section 29A(4) without any notice to the assessee. Learned Government Pleader defended the addition because according to him only on proof of evasion of tax penalty is levied. In the normal course, we should remand this matter because the assessee was stated to be unaware of the penalty proceedings. However, at this distance of time i.e. after 10 years, we do not want to unsettle the matter that too when the assessee itself is taken over by another Company. However, it is difficult to believe that the assessee, who wants to evade payment of tax, straight away brought the goods through check post, where it gets accounted and the Department keeps records of the same. Further, the penalty levied is through an exparte order and the penalty of Rs.46,037/-levied is already recovered from the assessee. We therefore feel some leniency can be shown with regard to the quantum addition. Therefore, while in principle, we uphold the addition based on penalty order, we reduce the addition to Rs.3 lakhs as against Rs.6,67,200/-sustained by the Tribunal. 7. Further, the penalty levied is through an exparte order and the penalty of Rs.46,037/-levied is already recovered from the assessee. We therefore feel some leniency can be shown with regard to the quantum addition. Therefore, while in principle, we uphold the addition based on penalty order, we reduce the addition to Rs.3 lakhs as against Rs.6,67,200/-sustained by the Tribunal. 7. So far as the S.T.Rev.No.155/2010 is concerned, we do not think there is any scope for interference to the addition because the Tribunal itself has modified the addition by granting partial relief to the assessee. So much so, we decline to interfere with the addition sustained by the Tribunal. 8. In so far as S.T.Rev.No128/2010 is concerned, it pertains to the CST assessment for 2003-04. The only dispute is with regard to the disallowance of stock transfer to the tune of a little over Rs.20 lakhs. Assessee's counsel submitted that the findings of the Tribunal that the assessee has not produced documents is factually incorrect and the assessee has produced all relevant documents including LRs, F-forms and Chartered Accountant's certification. However, learned Government Pleader relied on several decisions of this Court stating that unless physical movement of goods from one State to another is proved, the assessee cannot claim stock transfer by producing F-forms. In fact, if assessee had produced check post sealed LRs that would have been the conclusive evidence of stock transfer. In any case, what we notice is that the assessee has proved exemption to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs and balance stock transfer value of Rs.20 lakhs is disallowed for want of conclusive evidence. Here again, having regard to the documents produced, which includes even F-forms issued by the consignees, we feel assessee is entitled to partial relief. We accordingly, sustain the disallowance at Rs.10 lakhs and delete the balance addition in the CST turnover. Accordingly, S.T.Rev.Nos.131, 132 & 128/2010 are allowed in part as stated above and S.T.Rev.No.155/2010 is dismissed.