JUDGMENT : J.K. Ranka, J. This sales tax revision petition by the petitioner- Revenue is directed against the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board dated 27/02/1991 passed in Appeal No.122/90/ST/Jaipur. The matter relates to the assessment year 1984-85. 2. Brief facts are that the respondent-assessee is carrying on the business of manufacturing of non-woven felts, which are classified as non-made fabric under the Central Excise Tariff and the basic raw material which is being used for manufacturing the said fabric, is either polyester fibre and in some cases, cotton or mixture thereof and the fabric is produced by needle punching system, which is quite different from manufacturing the felt by process of hardening in the machine having an accentric motion. As per the process, noticed by the lower authorities, the textile fibres are first opened in blow room section, converted into a lap, fed into a hopper (if required) or directly fed into a card. By the carding process, a web of required weight (per sq. mt.) is formed. While under the traditional process of fabric manufacture, the web so formed is converted into yarns by spinning and subsequently into fabric by weaving of the said yarns. For the direct conversion of the web into fabric form, the following process is adopted:- The fibre web is converted into fabric form by the physical entanglement of the constituent fibres. This is achieved by needling of the fabric web by passing it through a needle loom machine. The needle loom machine comprises rows of verticle needles, each having a barb. As the web moves through the needle loom machine, the needles are caused to punch their way downwards through the fibres and then return. The barb on each needle moving through the web mechanically entangles and bonds the constituent fibres. The needling process is then repeated; the number of such repetitions depends upon the type of fabric (in terms of compactness) required to be produced. 3. It is the claim of the assessee that the product of the assessee was classified under the residuary item No.68 under the Central Excise & Salt Act, which is in respect of the goods not classified but on the representation made by the assessee, the Central Excise Authorities revised the classification and classified the product in question under tariff item No.22 w.e.f. 04/05/1984, except two products namely; F.F.B. 2 and F.F.B.W. 1. which were classified under tariff item No. 22 G and therefore, in the light of the same, it was the contention of the assessee that the fabric manufactured by the assessee is a "Textile Fabric" which is exempt from tax both under the State Act as well as under the Central Act. 4. The dispute revolves on the items, inter-alia, which is being manufactured by the assessee and is mainly used in cars as a matting and the same is being basically supplied to Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Premier Automobiles Ltd.. While the claim of the Revenue is that the items on which exemption has been claimed, cannot be said to be in the nature of man made fabric which is basically provided to car companies. 5. While the Assessing Officer (for short, 'AO') as well as the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)(for short, 'DC(A)") both held that the assessee is not entitled to exemption under the aforesaid notification and therefore, liable for tax, however, the Tax Board, on a consideration of the matter, accepted the contention raised by the assessee and reversed the finding of the lower authorities. 6. Ld. counsel for the petitioner-Revenue contended that the items, on which exemption has been claimed, cannot be classified as textile and even the assessee initially was of the view that no exemption is available on it and there was no question of treating the same as a textile item. It was contended that even as per the assessee, upto 05/04/1984, it was liable to be taxed and the tax was accordingly paid and it was contended that the Tax Board erred in holding it otherwise when it was a settled proposition, in so far as the claim of the assessee was concerned. It was further contended that the assessee even collected sales tax from the purchasers upto December, 1986 and once tax was collected, the question of claiming exemption does not arise. It was further contended that though tax was collected but was not paid. The item manufactured was used entirely for a different purpose. It was further contended that the assessee even collected sales tax from the purchasers upto December, 1986 and once tax was collected, the question of claiming exemption does not arise. It was further contended that though tax was collected but was not paid. The item manufactured was used entirely for a different purpose. It was further vehemently contended that the Tax Board had no expertise to come to a conclusion and on mere seeing of the samples produced by the assessee, the Tax Board ought not to have given finding on the issue and to hold that the items confirm to pliability and he contended that the matter deserves to be restored and be sent to some expert body for its expert opinion. 7. Per-contra, ld. counsel for the respondent-assessee contended that the assessee manufactures five items and is satisfied about the items where the Tax Board has held the tax leviable on items namely; F.F.B. 2 and F.F.B.W. 1., however the assessee was within its right to claim exemption on other item though on or before 05/04/1984 the proposition was accepted by the assessee but on and from 05/04/1984, as per the notification, the assessee was entitled to the exemption available to it. He further contended that a fabric will remain a fabric whether used for different purposes and the Tax Board, after analyzing the material on record, rightly came to the conclusion that items F.F.B. 2 and F.F.B.W. 1. are taxable fabrics and rest of the products of the assessee are exempt and admittedly, the assessee was satisfied in so far as the products categorized under F.F.B. 2 and F.F.B.W. 1. and therefore, accepted the judgment of the Tax Board and has not challenged it further. He further contended that though the amount was collected from the purchasers in confusion but admittedly on noticing the exemption, the amount was refunded to the customers/purchasers. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgments rendered in the case of Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana: (1978) 42 STC 433 ; Filterco and another v. Commissioner of Sales Tax: (1986) 61 STC 318 ; Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. state of Rajasthan and others : (1980) 46 STC 256 ; The State of Gujarat v. Ghanshyam Stores: (1982) 49 STC 117 and Commercial Taxes Officer, Pali v. Sakariya Textiles: (1986) 61 STC 24. 8. Ltd. v. state of Rajasthan and others : (1980) 46 STC 256 ; The State of Gujarat v. Ghanshyam Stores: (1982) 49 STC 117 and Commercial Taxes Officer, Pali v. Sakariya Textiles: (1986) 61 STC 24. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and in my view, the Tax Board has rightly come to the conclusion that it falls within the definition of fabric and is thus exempt. A fabric has been defined to mean "All textiles no matter how constructed, how manufactured, or the nature of the material from which made." and the expression "textile" is described as "any product manufactured from fibres through twisting, interlacing, bonding, looping, or any other means in such a manner that the flexibility, strength and other characteristic properties of the individual fibres are not suppressed." Fabric has also been defined as "a collective term applied to cloth, no matter how constructed or manufactured and regardless of the kind of fiber from which made. In structure it is planner produced by interlacing yarns, fibres or filaments. Textile fabrics include the following varities, bonding, felted, knitted, braided and woven." In another dictionary, fabric has been defined to mean "a cloth that is woven or knit, braided, netted with any textile fiber....", and "textile" is said to refer to "a broad classification of any material that can be worked into fabric, such as fibres and yarns including woven and knitted fabric, felt, netted fabric, lace and crouched goods." In Textile Terms and Definitions (1960), the word "cloth" is defined as "a generic term embracing all textile fabrics and laminar felts" and "textile" is applied in its modern sense to "any manufacture from fibres, filaments, or yarns, natural or artificial, obtained by inter-placing." 9. The Court is required to consider the plain and simple meaning of the term fabric/textile and the product comes out as a fabric though it may have been used as a matting and was supplied to car manufacturers namely; Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Premier Automobiles Ltd. which, in my view, does not make any difference. Once the product manufactured by the assessee is held to be fabric, the nature would remain the same and it would continue to remain as textile/fabric. 10. The assessee displayed the samples of the products in question not only before the Tax Board but was available in the file of the ld. Once the product manufactured by the assessee is held to be fabric, the nature would remain the same and it would continue to remain as textile/fabric. 10. The assessee displayed the samples of the products in question not only before the Tax Board but was available in the file of the ld. AO and the Tax Board has come to a definite finding of fact and after verification of the items has come to the conclusion that the items fully withstand the test of pliability and once the factual finding has come on record, the view of the Tax Board, after analyzing the material on record, appears to be well justified. 11. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee manufactured five items and out of five, two items namely; F.F.B. 2 and F.F.B.W. 1 have been found as a finding of fact that these items have been classified under entry 22-G of the Central Excise Tariff and they do not have pliability and therefore, were found not exempted and thus to the extent of these two items, the matter has been restored and it has been informed that the assessee agreed to the proposition and tax has been paid. 12. As regards the submission of counsel for the petitioner-Revenue, though it may be true that the Tax Board may not have expertise on coming to the conclusion merely on the basis of seeing the samples produced by the assessee at the time of hearing but nevertheless, a prima-facie conclusion can be drawn and from the reading of the order of the Tax Board, it is noticed that the samples were produced before the AO and were available even in the file of the AO and it is too late now to say on the part of the petitioner-Revenue that the matter may be restored for having expert opinion of the expert body to analyze the product manufactured by the assessee. If the AO had doubt, it was at that stage to have sought expert opinion about pliability or not of the material produced by the assessee and it would not be appropriate now to restore the matter back to the AO as the matter pertains to the assessment year 1984-85 and three decades have already passed during the intervening period. This court cannot travel beyond the finding of fact noticed by the Tax Board. 13. This court cannot travel beyond the finding of fact noticed by the Tax Board. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (supra), was considering an identical case of dryer felts made out of cotton or woollen yarn by the process of weaving according to the warp and woof pattern and commonly used as absorbents of moisture in the process of manufacture in paper manufacturing units, fall within the ordinary and common parlance meaning of the word 'textiles' in item 30 of Schedule B to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and whether it is exempt and the Hon'ble Apex Court, after analyzing the material on record held that the word "textiles" in item 30 of Schedule B must be interpreted according to its popular sense, meaning that sense which people conversant with the subject matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it. That word has only one meaning, namely, a woven fabric, and that is the meaning which it bears in ordinary parlance." It further viewed, that the concept "textile" is not a static concept. It has, having regard to newly developing materials, methods, techniques and processes, a continually expanding content and new kinds of fabric may be invented which may legitimately, without doing any violence to the language, be regarded as "textile". It held thus:- "It is true that our minds are conditioned by old and antiquated notions of what are textiles and, therefore, it may sound a little strange to regard '"dryer felts" as "textiles" : But it must be remembered that the concept of 'textiles' is not a static concept. It has, having regard to newly developing materials, methods, techniques and processes, a continually expanding content and new kinds of fabric may be invented which may legitimately, without doing any violence to the language, be regarded as 'textiles'. Take for example rayon and nylon fabrics which have now become very popular for making wearing apparel. When they first came to be made, they must have been intruders in the field of 'textiles' because only cotton, silk and woollen fabrics were till then recognized as 'textiles'. But today no one can dispute that rayon and nylon fabrics are textiles and can properly be described as such. We may take another example which is nearer to the case before us. But today no one can dispute that rayon and nylon fabrics are textiles and can properly be described as such. We may take another example which is nearer to the case before us. It is common knowledge that certain kinds of hats are made out of felt and though felt is not ordinarily used for making wearing apparel, can it be suggested that felt is not a 'textile' ? The character of a fabric or material as textile does not depend upon the use to which it may be put. The uses of textiles in a fast developing economy are manifold and it is quite common now to find 'textiles' being used even for industrial purposes. If we look at the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, we find in Chapter 59 occurring in section XI of the First Schedule that there is a reference to '"textile fabrics" and textile articles, "of a kind commonly used in machinery or plant '"and Clause (4) of that Chapter provides that this expression shall be taken to apply inter alia to '"woven textile felts...of a kind commonly used in paper making or other machinery...." This reference in a statute which is intended to apply to imports made by the trading community clearly shows that 'dryer felts' which are woven textile felts....of a kind commonly used in paper making machinery" are regarded in common parlance, according to the sense of ordinary traders and merchants, textile fabrics. We have, therefore, no doubt that 'dryer felts' are 'textiles' within the meaning of that expression in Item 30 of Schedule 'B.". 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Filterco and another v. Commissioner of Sales Tax: (supra), again adopting the meaning assigned in dictionaries as well as by its generally accepted popular connotation 'cloth' observed that it is woven, knitted or felted material which is pliable and is capable of being wrapped, folded or wound around. It need not necessarily be material suitable for making garments because there can be "cloth" suitable only for industrial purpose; but nevertheless it must possess the basic feature of pliability. It need not necessarily be material suitable for making garments because there can be "cloth" suitable only for industrial purpose; but nevertheless it must possess the basic feature of pliability. Hard and thick material which cannot be wrapped or wound around cannot be regarded as "cloth" and only those varieties of felt which satisfy the test of pliability will constitute "cloth" and after analyzing further held thus: "The appellants manufactured many varieties of woollen felts obtained by compressing woollen fibres and subjecting them to heat and moisture. Twenty-six samples of felt of varying hardness, density and thickness were produced before the Commissioner along with an application under section 42-B of the Act for determination of their taxability. After affording full hearing to the appellants, the Commissioner passed an order holding that though the expression "cloth" in item 6 of Schedule I to the Act would take in non-woven material inclusive of felt, pliability was an essential attribute of "cloth" and only those varieties of felt manufactured by the appellants which satisfied the test of pliability could be legitimately classified as cloth." 15. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and others (supra), held that The "rayon tyre cord fabric" manufactured by the appellant for use in the manufacture of tyres is a woven fabric in which the intermediate process of weaving of the thread across the warp cord is an integral stage of manufacture. It is, therefore, rayon fabric covered by item 18 of the Schedule to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and exempt from sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, during the assessment year 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 and for the first six months of 1972-73 and the exemption was not dependent on payment of additional excise duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957." 16. Gujarat High Court, in the case of The State of Gujarat v. Ghanshyam Stores (supra) held that "the collar-lining could not be said to be an article, though prepared from cotton fabrics, which could put to immediate use. The mere cutting of the cotton cloth to the required size and shape could not be said to be a process so as to make the end-product a different article than the cotton fabric. The mere cutting of the cotton cloth to the required size and shape could not be said to be a process so as to make the end-product a different article than the cotton fabric. Also the definition of the term "cotton fabrics" in item 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, specified referentially in entry 37 of Schedule I to the Act, is an inclusive definition which had brought in also the fabrics impregnated or coated with other chemical compounds. Therefore, inter-lining collar cuttings and interlining double collar cuttings were only cotton fabrics covered by entry 37 of Schedule I to the Act and the sale or purchase of such collar cuttings would be free from all taxes as provided in section 5 of the Act and could not be taxed under the residuary entry 13 of Schedule III to the Act." 17. This Court, in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer, Pali v. Sakariya Textiles: (supra) held "Pachrangi dori is a very thin- even thinner than a thin string. It is a bunch of same cotton threads of five colours which are intertwined and twisted. The mere act of twisting, braiding, colouring, dyeing or bunching of cotton yarn into a single cord does not bring into existence a new commercial product. Cotton thread is made from cotton yarn. In order to make cotton thread, few cotton yarns are braided and intertwined but the yarn does not lose its identity. Therefore, cotton thread has been accepted as cotton yarn." 18. Consequently, in the light of what has been expressed herein above, the question referred to is answered in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the petitioner-Revenue and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision Dismissed.