JUDGMENT A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. (Oral) Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The principal question, that arises for consideration is whether entry No. 14 in Schedule II, framed in exercise of powers under Sections 2 & 3 of the Act, is applicable to the case of the petitioner, who admittedly imports diesel and Furnace oil for running its industry engaged in producing medicines. The argument proceeds that because of the liberal industrial policy, the petitioner was persuaded to start the industry in the State of Himachal Pradesh and keeping in mind entry No. 14, the petitioner verily believed that the liability of the petitioner to pay tax will not exceed 2%, which was later on reduced to 1% in terms of Notification, dated 13th July, 2011. On that basis, the petitioner paid the tax from time to time while importing the diesel and Furnace oil within the territory of the State of Himachal Pradesh. 3. The argument, though attractive at the first blush, does not commend to us. We say so because we find that in Schedule II, there is a specific entry covering import of diesel and Furnace oil and provides for tax at the rate of 7%. It is not possible to countenance the argument of the petitioner that inspite of that specific entry, the product/goods, imported by the petitioner, within the territory of the State of Himachal Pradesh, would be covered by entry No. 14, which, in our opinion, is a residuary entry. We find force in the submission of the learned Advocate General that in the presence of a specific entry i.e. entry No. 1, covering the product/goods, imported by the petitioner, within the territory of the State, that product cannot be classified as falling under residuary entry No. 14. Reliance has been justly placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Wockhardt Life Sciences Limited1. In paragraph 37, the Apex Court has observed thus:- “37. A commodity cannot be classified in a residuary entry, in the presence of a specific entry, even if such specific entry requires the product to be understood in the technical sense (see (Akbar Badrudin Giwani Vs. Collector of Customs2 and Commr. Of Customs Vs. G.C. Jain3). Wockhardt Life Sciences Limited1. In paragraph 37, the Apex Court has observed thus:- “37. A commodity cannot be classified in a residuary entry, in the presence of a specific entry, even if such specific entry requires the product to be understood in the technical sense (see (Akbar Badrudin Giwani Vs. Collector of Customs2 and Commr. Of Customs Vs. G.C. Jain3). A residuary entry can be taken refuge of only in the absence of a specific entry; that is to say, the latter will always prevail over the former [See CCE Vs. Jayant Oil Mills (P) Ltd.4, HPL Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CCE5, Western India Plywoods Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs6 and CCE Vs. Carrier Aircon Ltd.7]” 4. Counsel for the petitioner, however, was at pains to persuade us to take the view that the purport of entry No. 14 is applicable and would be attracted in respect of all Industrial Inputs, raw material, including goods, mentioned in Schedule II, except the one referred to in entry 9-b. This argument is another shade of the same grievance made earlier which has been rejected for the reasons noted hitherto. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has placed on record communication, issued under the signature of Excise and Taxation Commissioner dated 20th September, 2011, in which he has opined that the diesel and Furnace oil cannot be categorized as raw material and, as such, cannot be covered under the industrial Inputs being consumables. With regard to the said product, entry tax on diesel and Furnace oil is applicable at the rate of 5%. Relying on the Notification, issued on 22nd September, 2012, Annexure P-8, however, the counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the department, only after realizing the drawback in the existing provision, decided to expressly exclude the product/goods falling under entry No. 1 by amending entry No. 14 in the following words:- “Government of Himachal Pradesh, Excise and Taxation Department No.EXN-F(10)-4/2011, Dated Shimla 171001 22nd September, 2012 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Area Act, 2010 (Act No. 9 of 2010), the Governor of Himachal Pradesh is pleased to make the following amendment in Schedule-II appended to the said Act, namely:- AMENDMENT In Schedule-II of the aforesaid Act, the existing entry No. 14 shall be substituted namely:- Sr. No. Goods Rate of Tax 14. No. Goods Rate of Tax 14. “All industrial inputs, raw material and 1% packing material other than goods mentioned at Serial No. 1 and 9(b) of this Schedule, brought from outside the state for consumption, use in manufacturing, processing, conversion, job-work and assembling.” By Order, Sd/- Principal Secretary (E&T) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.” 5.In our opinion, this cannot be considered as new entry incorporated in Schedule II. However, the purport of the Notification is explanatory in nature, which is stating the obvious that product/goods, specifically covered by entry I in Schedule II, cannot be covered under residuary entry No. 14. Accordingly, no interference is warranted. The petition is dismissed.