JUDGMENT R. Sudhakar, J. 1. This Tax Case (Revision) is filed by the assessee as against the order of the Joint Commissioner (SMR), Commercial Taxes, Chennai dated 15.11.99. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner/assessee is a dealer in glass. They were assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs.41,98,878/- and Rs.38,51,594/- respectively for the assessment year 1992-93 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. During inspection, stock discrepancy was noticed to the value of Rs.51,484/- and hence, the Assessing Officer estimated the suppression to the value of Rs.1,02,968/-. The Assessing Officer has also included the forwarding charges in the taxable turnover amounting to Rs.41,830/-. The Assessing Officer has also not accepted the rate of tax adopted by the dealers at 8% and determined to tax at 12% under Entry 11 of Part E of I Schedule to Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Consequently, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who sustained the assessment order with regard to forwarding charges, reduced the equal addition on stock discrepancy and set aside the assessment of turnover at 12%, thereby partly allowed the appeal holding as follows: "The last point of dispute relates to the turnover of Rs.1,18,629/- which was assessed to tax at 12% by the assessing authority under entry 11 of part E of first schedule while the appellant contend that the goods sold fall under entry 43(ii) of part D of first schedule. The reason adduced by the learned assessing authority for assessing this turnover at 12% is that as per the amended fist schedule entry under item 11 of part E includes toughened glass, laminated sheets and tinted glass and tax liable on them is 12% with effect from 12.03.93. However, the learned assessing authority has not established with sale details that the turnover of Rs.1,18,629/- related to toughened glass, safety glass & tinted sheets. Moreover, the learned assessing authority contends at page 5 of the order that there is no specific entry as 'auto glass' anywhere in the first schedule. However, the learned assessing authority has not established with sale details that the turnover of Rs.1,18,629/- related to toughened glass, safety glass & tinted sheets. Moreover, the learned assessing authority contends at page 5 of the order that there is no specific entry as 'auto glass' anywhere in the first schedule. However, the conclusion of the learned assessing authority are not acceptable as the learned assessing authority did not prove that the appellant had sold items other than automobile glasses and he was carried away by the amended entry without having consideration to the usage theory. In fact, the learned assessing authority himself had assessed the turnover at 8% classifying the item as first sales of autoglass. It is an admitted fact that the appellant are primarily dealers in automobile glasses and their supplies were mostly to automobile manufacturers and dealers. They bought automobile glasses from 15 sellers as Atul Glass Industries Ltd., Faridabed and Tvl.Maharashtra Safety Glass Works Ltd., Pune and these sellers manufacturer automobile glasses. The records of the appellant prove this fact and the name of the appellant firm also suggests so. Besides the inspecting officers themselves had found the dealings of the appellant as in "automobile glass" safety glass and mirrors" as on 26.02.93. In view of these facts and applying the user theory, the stand of the learned assessing authority is found to be not sustainable. The assessing authority is directed to assess the turnover of Rs.1,18,629/- at 8%. 17. In conclusion, the appeal is partly allowed, partly dismissed and partly modified." 4. Finding that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, in exercise of power under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the Joint Commissioner initiated suo motu revision by issuing show cause notice to the assessee. In response to the said notice issued, the assessee filed a written submission stating that the assessee is primarily dealers in automobile glass and their supplies were mostly to automobile manufacturers and hence, based on the user theory, wind screen/toughened glass could be classified only under Entry 43(ii) of Part D and liable to tax at 8%. In response to the said notice issued, the assessee filed a written submission stating that the assessee is primarily dealers in automobile glass and their supplies were mostly to automobile manufacturers and hence, based on the user theory, wind screen/toughened glass could be classified only under Entry 43(ii) of Part D and liable to tax at 8%. Not satisfied with the written submissions filed by the assessee, the Joint Commissioner took a different view and came to hold as follows: "A comparison of the old Entry 102 and Entry 11 of Part -E will made things clear. The entry available in 11(1) viz., Flat Glass, including sheet glass, wired glass and rolled whether in the form of plate glass figured glass or in any other form coloured glass, cooler glass toughened glass; laminated safety glass, tinted glass will include the windscreen of any size sold either to Car, Bus or Lorry. Therefore, Appellate Assistant Commissioner is not correct in treating the windscreen as automobile part. Therefore, the order of Appellate Assistant Commissioner is set aside and the order of Assessing Officer is restored." 5. Aggrieved by the above-said order of the Joint Commissioner, the assessee has preferred the present Tax Case (Revision). 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/assessee and the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the respondent/Revenue and perused the materials placed before this Court. 7. The short issue that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the windscreen glasses sold by the assessee fall under Entry 11 Part E of the I Schedule, taxable at 12% or under Entry 43(ii) of Part D of I Schedule of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, taxable at 8%. 8. Since the issue involved in this revision centers around classification of goods, for better clarity, both the Entries in the I Schedule, viz., Entry 43(ii) in Part D and Entry 11 in Part E, as on 12.3.1996, which is the date relevant for the instant case, read as follows: "First Schedule - Part D 43.(i) Motor cars, motor taxi-cabs, motor omni buses, motor vans, jeeps and (ii) Parts and accessories of motor vehicles and trailers including bulbs faremeters but excluding batteries 8 % 12.03.1993 First Schedule - Part - E 11. Glass and glassware, all sorts (other than those specified elsewhere in this schedule) including (i) Flat glass, including sheet glass, wired glass are rolled whether in the form of plate glass, figured glass or in any other form, coloured glass, cooler glass, toughened glass, laminated safety glass, tinted glass; 12% 12.3.93 9. Having gone through the relevant entries, we find that the reasoning of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner appears to be more appropriate in the facts of the present case, who has applied the user theory, more particularly in a case where the goods sold is specifically parts and accessories of motor vehicles. 10. It is to be noted that Entry 43(ii) of Part D of First Schedule includes bulbs, which is also made of glass. Therefore, the distinction is that the goods forming parts and accessories of motor vehicle would fall under Entry 43(ii) of Part D of First Schedule, taxable at 8%, in contrast to usual glass and glassware in Entry 11 of Part E of First Schedule of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 11. The above-said view of this Court was fortified in the decision reported in [1986] 63 STC 322 (Atul Glass Industries Private LTD.: Hindustan Safety Glass Works LTD. Vs. Collector Of Central Excise: Union Of India), wherein the Supreme Court while analysing the test to determine whether a marketable product falls under a specific entry, held as follows: "17. Upon the tests-and having regard to the foregoing considerations which have appealed to us when considering the proper classification of glass mirrors, we have no hesitation in holding that the screens cannot be described as "glass or glasswares" under Tariff Item No. 23A(4). No one dealing in or using the screens would consider them as "glass or glassware". They can only be considered as motor vehicle parts. Even if we assume that they could fall under Tariff Item No. 23A(4) relating to glass and glassware also, inasmuch as Tariff Item No. 34A is a special entry and Tariff Item No. 23A(4) is a general entry, the special must exclude the general and therefore also it is Tariff Item No. 34A which prevails and is attracted." 12. In the instant case also, Entry 43(ii) of Part D of I Schedule specifically deals with parts and accessories of motor vehicle, while Entry 11 of Part E of I Schedule deals with general glass and glasswares. In the instant case also, Entry 43(ii) of Part D of I Schedule specifically deals with parts and accessories of motor vehicle, while Entry 11 of Part E of I Schedule deals with general glass and glasswares. When there is a specific entry in the statute, the same should be applied while making the assessment. It is not in dispute that the assessee is a dealer in automobile glasses and has supplied their goods to the automobile manufacturers. 13. In the light of the above-said decision, which squarely applies to the facts of the present case, the issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 14. It is to be noted that in the written submission, the assessee has, in fact, relied on the above-said decision. But the Joint Commissioner has not taken note of the above-said decision, while deciding the issue. In the result, this Tax Case (Revision) stands allowed. No costs.