Judgment : Chitra Venkataraman, J. 1. The assessee is on revision as against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment year 2007-08 raising the following questions of law :- "1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in ignoring the law that in matter of classification, identification of an entry is the primary step, which is concerned with goods and not with description of goods, since the description would be relevant for the application of particular entry, for a single entry refers to a large number of goods of different types, since it is not possible to encapsulate them completely under the comprehensive titles ((2005)5RC 666) ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate the law that when entry 80/Part B of the First Schedule being "maize products" would include all the goods predominantly made out of maize unless there being any contrary intention indicated by the legislature as in the case of other goods? " 2. The assessee herein is a registered dealer carrying on business in food products made of maize. Admittedly, the assessee deals in branded food products. The assessee was originally assessed in respect of sale of products made of maize under Sl.No. 80, Part B First Schedule of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. (hereinafter called as the "Act") However, the said assessment on maize products was sought to be revised under Section 27(1)(b) of the Act, assessing the turnover at 12.5% as an unclassified item falling under Entry 69 Part C of First Schedule to the Act. Since the assessee did not reply to the notice, the assessment proposed was confirmed. 3. Aggrieved by this, the assessee went on appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, questioning the rate of tax contending that these products are wholly made of corn or maize. Since the assessee did not reply to the notice, the assessment proposed was confirmed. 3. Aggrieved by this, the assessee went on appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, questioning the rate of tax contending that these products are wholly made of corn or maize. The assessee contented that Appalam, Papad, Vadam and Vathal which falls under item Sl.No.4 of Part B under IV Schedule, is totally exempt from tax; that the maize products sold under the brand name of PEPPY, Cheese Balls, Senon Papito, Tortilla Chips, Peppy Eatos etc., all are maize products, assessable under Sl.No. 80, Part B First Schedule to the Act at 4%; that the Entry does not say anything that frying or flavouring would make the maize product different by reason of which it may not fall under Serial No.80 of Part B of First Schedule to the Act. It further contended that just because the maize product is sold in the brand name, the revised assessment levying higher rate of tax is totally uncalled for. The assessee enclosed the treatment under the Central Excise Act as well as the ruling of Advance Ruling Authority of Karnataka State, wherein, the maize products are exempted from the levy of tax and contended that the assessment be set aside. 4. The First Appellate Authority agreed with the assessee's contention by following the decision of the Advance Ruling Authority of Karnataka State in Order No.222/05 dated 31.03.2006 holding that "Senor Pepito contillaa chips" is nothing but "Pappad", hence, eligible for exemption. He pointed out that the laboratory test showed that they are all products of maize. Thus, accepting the case of the assessee, the first Appellate Authority held that the assessment could not be made under the residuary item, but only under Sl.No. 80, Part B of the First Schedule to the Act. 5. The Revenue took this matter on appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, who set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and restored the order of assessment. 6. A reading of the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal shows that samples were produced by the assessee and that the original contents of the packing showed that the product name is "Peppy Cheese Balls" and "Senor Pepito Tortilla Chips", which are ready to eat snack item, no doubt they are maize based, but could not be classified as maize products. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal further pointed out that the assessee had pasted the label 'maize product' manually on the packing material to establish that the products sold are maize products only. It was further pointed out that in one sample, the cheese balls are sold under the brand name "Peppy" and another under the brand name "Tortilla Chips". Thus being ready to eat snack items and being branded items, they are liable to be assessed at 12.5% tax. Aggrieved by this, the present Tax Case (Revision) is preferred by the assessee. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee placed before us the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. Protein Products of India reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T.749 (S.C.) to emphasise on the expression "product" to hold that in the case of gelatine obtained by chemical treatment of bones, the Apex Court held that they are all bone products, entitled to exemption. The Apex Court referred to Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary on the word "product" as "anything produced or obtained as a result of some operation of work", thus, bone products were held to be anything produced or obtained from bones; whether such derivation is by a simple physical process or by a chemical reaction made no difference to the end product. Thus, buttermilk does not cease to be a milk product merely because a chemical process is involved in the transformation. 8. Learned counsel further placed before us the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Kwality Restaurant reported in (1980)45 STC 486 and the decision in the case of Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Rita Ice Cream reported in (1982) 49 STC 297 (Allahabad) as well as the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Gian Chand Halwai Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Allahabad High Court, in the decision reported in (1980) 45 STC 486 (cited supra) referred to the decision in the case of Kwality Ice Cream Co Vs. Sales Tax Officer reported in (1974) 34 STC 396 , wherein, Ice cream was held as milk product. Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Allahabad High Court, in the decision reported in (1980) 45 STC 486 (cited supra) referred to the decision in the case of Kwality Ice Cream Co Vs. Sales Tax Officer reported in (1974) 34 STC 396 , wherein, Ice cream was held as milk product. Thus, adopting the view expressed in the above judgments, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that Peppy, Cheese Balls, Senon Papito, Tortilla Chips, Peppy Eatos etc., sold in the brand names is nothing but maize products, liable to be assessed under Sl.No.80 Part B of the First Schedule to the Act. He also took us through the manufacturing process of Tortilla Chips and Cheese Balls. In the case of Cheese Balls, after grinding the whole maize, the same is round shaped as corn balls and to this, cheese flavour and the vegetable oil are added; in the case of Tortilla Chips, after grinding the whole maize, the same is made into a thick paste, they are cut into required shape and baked in oven, thereafter flash frying in vegetable oil and seasoning, the product is packed. 9. As pointed out rightly by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the item in question, even though are maize based, that, by itself, does not make the item in question a maize product. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed before us the Wikipedia Dictionary meaning as to various maize products to drive the point that the chips as well as the corn balls are nothing but maize products. 11. The materials placed before this Court merely show that maize is used as a base for making corn muffins, cornbread and breads. Leaving aside the question of relevance of wikipedia dictionary, it is relevant to see how the marketable product is made. It is seen from the narration given in the typed set of papers that the cheese balls and tortilla chips are made with the ground maize powder, to which, cheese flavour and seasoning are added. To be called a product, the item in question must retain the essential nature or substantial identity of that commodity, out of which it is made of a thing. To qualify as a product, an item in question may undergo a change in the form; but nevertheless, it must retain the substantial identity of the original product. To be called a product, the item in question must retain the essential nature or substantial identity of that commodity, out of which it is made of a thing. To qualify as a product, an item in question may undergo a change in the form; but nevertheless, it must retain the substantial identity of the original product. If one goes by the substantial identity tests or the essential nature tests as propounded by the Apex Court in the decision reported in (1960) 11 STC 827 (Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool), the momen the base material lost its identity by reason of further process, we do not find any justifiable ground to accept the case of the assessee that the items in question would qualify to be called as maize products under Sl.No.80 Part B of the First Schedule to the Act. 12. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. Protein Products of India reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 749 (S.C), will not be of any assistance to the case on hand. The judgment reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 749 (S.C) (cited supra) relates to ossein and gelatine manufacture out of bones. The exemption entry in the Notification dealt with crushed bones and bone products. The Apex Court held that the "Bone Products" does not mean that the products must contain visible pieces of bones and that the expression will include all the derivatives from bone. The Apex Court pointed out that there was no logic or principle in holding that only products obtained by a physical treatment of bones, such as crushing or powdering would be entitled to exemption and not the products obtained by chemical treatment. Pointing out that gelatine is not produced merely from bones, but also other things, such as skin and tissues of animals, the fact that the other raw materials are used to an extent for manufacture of gelatine or ossein, by itself, would not make gelatine, a product other than a bone product. Referring to Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary, the Apex Court held that derivation from chemical reaction, the end product will nevertheless be treated as the primary product; in the circumstances, without straining the expression used in the Notification, the gelatine and ossein manufactured by the assessee as bone products was entitled to exemption. 13. Referring to Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary, the Apex Court held that derivation from chemical reaction, the end product will nevertheless be treated as the primary product; in the circumstances, without straining the expression used in the Notification, the gelatine and ossein manufactured by the assessee as bone products was entitled to exemption. 13. As far as the present case is concerned, on the process already mentioned to become a ready to eat item as a snack, the case of the assessee is distinguishable from the decision of the Apex Court . 14. As far as the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Gian Chand Halwai Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Kwality Restaurant reported in (1980) 45 STC 486 and the decision in the case of Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Rita Ice Cream reported in (1982) 49 STC 297 are concerned, they stand on a different footing from the case on hand. Contrary to the assessee's submission, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal further found that a ready to eat item like what has been dealt with by the assessee could no longer be treated as maize product and that the hand pasted label further went against the very veracity of the contention of the assesee. 15. In the circumstances, we do not find any justifiable ground in the plea of the assessee that the item would fall under Sl.No.80, Part B of the First Schedule to the Act. On the admitted fact that the items in question are sold under the brand name, in the absence of any Entry in the Schedule to cover such items, residuary item will have relevance for the purpose of fixing the rate of tax. Even though in normal circumstances, the item in question would fall under Sl.No.51, Part-B, First Schedule to the Act, yet, on the admitted case, the items being sold under the brand name, the products viz., Peppy, Cheese Balls, Senon Papito, Tortilla Chips and Peppy Eatos, as branded food products, attract tax at 12.5%, falling under the residuary clause under Sl.No.69, Part C of First Schedule to the Act. In the result, the Tax Case (Revision) stands dismissed. No costs.