1. By this order it is proposed to dispose of an appeal filed against the order passed by the Ld. Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals) (Appellate Authority), Jammu. The string of incidents, put in a sequence, as they emerge from a study of the file, under consideration, are, very briefly, as under:- 2. The dealer, (Appellant) is running an industrial unit duly registered with DIC Kathua. He is engaged in the business of the manufacture and sale of yarn, etc. In response to the statutory notice issued to the dealer in Form VAT 17, Sh. Yash Paul, his Authorized signatory, attended the assessment proceedings carried by the Assessing Authority, Sales Tax, Circle-Kathua, for the Accounting year 2006-07. The dealer filed all the quarterly returns well in time. Annual returns filed by him revealed that he had made a total sale of Rs. 4305073750-65 that included local sale of Rs. 7102644-08 @ 4% and Rs. 402198-64 @ 12.5% and sale in the course of interstate trade and commerce for Rs. 4297568908-00 ( including stock transfer of Rs. 1117603977.00 and export sale of Rs. 57101059). The dealer filed an affidavit that he had made total raw-material purchase of Rs. 2647323166-02 and claimed input tax credit of Rs. 1160807-99 on local purchase of Rs. 29009291-55 @ 4% and Rs. 22362-72 on local purchase of Rs. 1774179-53 @ 12.5%, but on verification of VAT-50 invoices produced by the dealer, it came to notice that the dealer had claimed input tax credit @ 4% on purchase of quick lime and slack coal for Rs. 741142-00 and paint, turpentine oil, Bopp tape, etc @ 12.5% for Rs. 1485962. The Assessing and the Appellate Authority held that as per section 21(4) (b) of the VAT Act, input Tax Credit could be allowed for purchase of goods made within the state from a registered dealer holding a valid certificate of registration and intended for the purpose of use as raw material or as capital goods in the manufacturing or processing of the goods other than those exempt from tax under the act, intended for sale in the state. Since coal is used as "fuel" in the course of manufacturing or processing, therefore, it does not fall within the definition of "Raw Material" but falls under the category of "fuel". Since coal is used as "fuel" in the course of manufacturing or processing, therefore, it does not fall within the definition of "Raw Material" but falls under the category of "fuel". Paint, Bopp, tape, etc; are used in containers for packing of goods and are not entitled for input tax credit. Similarly packing material is not raw-material for the concern and the dealer is not, therefore, entitled for input tax credit on these goods. Accordingly input tax credit on these amounting to Rs. 221772-00 claimed by the dealer has been disallowed to him. The dealer assailed the order of the Assessing Authority in an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the Appellant. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority the dealer filed an appeal before this Tribunal on the grounds inter-alia that as per the Value Added Tax Act, industrial unit is entitled to claim input tax credit on raw material purchased from local registered dealers. 3. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material on record. "In scanning the claim of input tax credit preferred by the appellant what requires to be stated is that the same has to be weighed and examined in terms of Section 21(4) of the Value Added Tax Act, 2005,the relevant excerpts of which are reproduced herein below:- "21(4) Input Tax Credit shall be allowed for purchase of goods Made within the State from a registered dealer holding a valid certificate of registration and which are intended for the purpose of -- (b) use as raw material or as capital goods in the manufacturing and processing of goods other than those exempt from tax under the Act intended for sale in the State.." In the case at issue, there are catenas of judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that fuel used in the manufacturing process of the end -- product constitutes raw material for the interpretation of this term in the relevant section pertaining to the raw material. A very germane ruling in a similar case is reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 11 (Union of India v. Ahmedabad Electricity Co Ltd., the relevant excerpts of which are given below:- "In the case in hand also coal which leads to production of a cinder is not used as a raw material for the end product. It is being used only for ancillary purpose that is as a fuel. Therefore, irrespective of the fact whether any manufacture is involved in production of cinder it should be held to be out of the tax net for the reason that it is not a raw material for the end product. In producing "cinder' there is no manufacturing process involved. Coal is simply burnt as fuel to produce steam. Coal is not tampered with, manipulated or transformed into the end product. For purpose of manufacture the raw material should ultimately get a new identity by virtue of the manufacturing process either on its own or in conjunction or combination with other raw materials. Since coal is not a raw material for the end product in all the cases before us, the question of getting a new identity as an end product due to manufacturing process does not arise. In Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi v. M/s Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [ (1989) 4 SCC 566 ], the raw material in the course of chemical reactions got burnt up and lost its apparent identity. To be more precise, the input of sodium sulphate in the manufacture of paper would not cease to be a raw material by reason alone of the fact that in the course of the chemical reactions, this ingredient is consumed and burnt up. All the same it remained a raw material. It was held that the relevant test is not the absence of the raw material in the end product, but the dependence of the end product for its essential presence at the delivery end of process. What follows from this is that the raw material which we are concerned about is the raw material which is linked with emergence of the end product. It has to be present in the end product whether visibly or invisibly. Use of an item as fuel cannot be called part of the manufacturing activity in relation to production of the end product. It has to be present in the end product whether visibly or invisibly. Use of an item as fuel cannot be called part of the manufacturing activity in relation to production of the end product. Therefore, cinder cannot be said to be a by-product of the final product. At best it is a by-product of coal which is used as fuel. Can burning of coal be called manufacturing? The locomotive steam engines used to run on coal. Coal was being constantly burnt in the boiler of the engine. The constant burning of coal produced cinder. Could it be said that the engine driver was manufacturing cinder? Is any manufacturing activity involved? Burning of coal for purpose of producing steam cannot be said to be a manufacturing activity. Therefore, neither ash nor cinder can be said to be products of a manufacturing process. From burning coal when we get either cinder or ash, it cannot be said that a new product had emerged. Cinder remains coal. In fact, the Department itself has described it as unburnt part of coal in the grounds of appeal in C. a No. 2168-2169 of 2001 in the Ahmedabad Electricity Supply Company case. "Cinder' is not a new product. After correctly describing cinder as unburnt part of coal, the Revenue cannot equate it to ash simply to somehow bring it within Entry 26.21 of the Tariff Act." The judgment quoted above gives support to accept the view that in the order impugned, It has correctly been held that coal in the strict sense of the term falls within the category of "fuel". In Travancore Titanium products v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in [2009] 23 VST 70 (KER) reliance has been put to the law laid down in Collector of Central Excise v. Ballarpur industries Ltd., and it has been held as under:- "The expression "industrial raw material" in section 5(3) of the Act is used to denote raw materials used for industrial purpose. It means something which is used for manufacturing or producing the goods. The ordinary common sense understanding of it is that, it is something from which another new or distinct commodity is produced. The condition that the industrial raw material sold must be "used in the production of finished products inside the State for sale" only means that the raw materials must be used in the production of finished products. The ordinary common sense understanding of it is that, it is something from which another new or distinct commodity is produced. The condition that the industrial raw material sold must be "used in the production of finished products inside the State for sale" only means that the raw materials must be used in the production of finished products. The term "raw materials" would include materials which physically enter into the composition of the finished product." 4. Since in the order impugned, it has correctly been held that quick lime, slack coal and turpentine oil are used as "fuel" in the manufacturing process and this seems to be a correct proposition of law in view of the fact that these are used by the Respondent industry as fuel for the purpose of manufacturing of yarn etc and cannot therefore be said to have been used as raw material in their production but only as an aid in their production. These cannot be said to have been used as an input in the production of finished product as they are indefinable in the final product, and, therefore, would not fall in the category of "raw material". There thus seems to be no reason to interfere with the order of the Appellate Authority which is accordingly upheld. Records, summoned, if any, be returned forthwith. File shall be consigned to records after due completion.