JUDGMENT : THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. These revisions under Section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and original petitions stand remitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as per the remand order dated 28.4.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 3758 of 2011 and connections. 2. The basic substratum of these litigations relates to the interpretation and construction of SRO No. 641 of 1981 and SRO No. 1516 of 1990 issued by the Government of Kerala in exercise of powers conferred under Section 10 of the KGST Act. As per SRO No. 641 of 1981 which is deemed to have come into force on 1.4.1981, reduced rate of tax was prescribed on the purchase of rubber by manufacturers of finished rubber projects within the State for use of such rubber by such manufacturers in the manufacture of finished rubber products within the State. Through SRO No. 1516 of 1990, the term finished rubber products occurring in SRO No. 641 of 1981 was sought to be explained by the introduction of an Explanation which is deemed to have come into force with effect from 1.4.1989 subject to the condition that taxes if any remitted by any dealer shall not be refunded. That Explanation is, inter alia, to the effect that for the purpose of SRO No. 641 of 1981 finished rubber product shall not include any form of rubber which are subjected to processing by mixing with chemicals, gas, fumigation or any other similar process to make any compound of rubber. 3. While completing the assessments for the relevant years, the assessing authority denied the claim of concessional rate of tax on the purchase turnover of raw rubber used in the manufacture of rubber compound on the ground that the goods manufactured by the assessee is compound of rubber which is not a finished product. The first appellate authority upheld that view of the assessing authority. The Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal considered the further appeals noting, in our view, correctly, that the main issue agitated by the assessee in all the appeals is the denial of claim of concessional rate of tax on the purchase turnover of raw rubber used in the manufacture of rubber compound. The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to concessional rate of sales tax on the purchase of rubber used in the production of compound rubber. The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to concessional rate of sales tax on the purchase of rubber used in the production of compound rubber. This Court, through Sales Tax Revision No. 213 of 2006 and connections and also two original petitions tagged along therewith, held against the assessee through judgment dated 18.12.2008 reversing the decision of the Tribunal and restoring the assessments confirmed in the first appeals; however, without answering the grounds raised in the original petitions. This Court turned down the plea of the assessee that the rubber compound or compound of rubber made by the assessee is not any compound of rubber referred to in the notifications. Contextually, it is apposite to quote the relevant portion of the judgment dated 18.12.2008 in STRV No. 213 of 2006 and connections. It reads as follows:- "Since assessee raised a contention that rubber compound made after processing is different from rubber compound made as manufactured product, we requested the assessee to inform us whether any other form of rubber compound other than what is made by the assessee is available in the market which is fit for use in the manufacture of tyre. The assessee fairly conceded that all through they were making one and the same item that is rubber compound which is made by mixing of rubber with chemicals like carbon black, processing oil, etc. and it is an intermediary for manufacture of tyre. In other words, after the finality of first round of litigation through judgment of this Court, confirmed by the judgment of Supreme Court, the assessee has not changed the pattern of production or made any change in the product to claim the benefit of notification. In other words, raw materials purchased, process involved and the product manufactured continued to be the same all through. We notice that the assessee misled the Tribunal by stating that there is difference between the rubber compound and compound of rubber and the Tribunal easily fell prey to it. The Explanation to the notification covers any compound of rubber made out of mixing rubber with chemicals, gas, fumigation, etc. What assessee is doing is admittedly mixing up of natural rubber with carbon black, processing oil, etc. to make it a compound of rubber. The Explanation to the notification covers any compound of rubber made out of mixing rubber with chemicals, gas, fumigation, etc. What assessee is doing is admittedly mixing up of natural rubber with carbon black, processing oil, etc. to make it a compound of rubber. In fact not only the assessee but also others who are engaged in the manufacture of tyre are using the same process and the variation is only in the ratio and the quality of chemical and other ingredients used in mixing which determine the quality of the tyre. In these circumstances we hold that the finding of the Tribunal that the rubber compound or compound of rubber made by the assessee is not "any compound of rubber" referred to in the notification is absurd, unrealistic and unsustainable. Explanation covers process of mixing of rubber with chemicals or any other ingredient to make any compound of rubber, and therefore assessee will not get concessional rate of tax on the purchase of rubber used in the production of rubber compound. We are of the view that the purpose of Explanation as found by this Court in the earlier decision is to deny benefit to producers of any compound of rubber and therefore the distinction between manufacture and processing raised by the assessee has no relevance. The assessee has no case that they are doing anything other than mixing of rubber purchased with chemicals like carbon black, processing oil, etc., and the product is in a form of compound rubber which is nothing but an intermediary used in the production of tyre. We therefore allow the Tax Revision Cases by reversing the order of the Tribunal and by restoring the assessments confirmed in first appeals." 4. The assessee carried the aforesaid judgment dated 18.12.2008 to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India seeking Special Leave to Appeal. Leave was granted and those appeals were decided through order dated 28.4.2011. The said order on Civil Appeal Appeal No. 3758 of 2011 and connections reads as follows:- "1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on 18.12.2008 allowing the Sales Tax Revision filed by the respondent State and thereby setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal. 3. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on 18.12.2008 allowing the Sales Tax Revision filed by the respondent State and thereby setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal. 3. The issue that is being considered is as to whether or not the appellant assessee is entitled to concessional rate of sales tax on the purchase of rubber used in the production of compound rubber. Various contentions were urged at different stages and finally by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court held that the appellant herein is not entitled to such benefit of concessional rate of tax. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that in order to decide the entire dispute between the parties effectively, a finding has to be recorded as to whether or not rubber compound and compound of rubber are two different and distinct articles or they are the same article. In order to decide the aforesaid issue which appears to be very technical, we feel that sufficient evidence is required to be led. Although in the present case evidence has been led by way of affidavits on behalf of the appellant, we do not find any evidence having been led by the respondent in support of their case that the articles manufactured by the appellant is compound of rubber and not rubber compound. We also find that the aforesaid issue which is very material and relevant, has not been properly and effectively discussed and addressed by the High Court. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we set aside the judgment and order dated 18.12.2008 of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in STR Nos. 224, 225, 213, 231, 262 of 2006 and restore the same to the file of the High Court. 6. Be it also mentioned that two writ petitions were filed, being Writ Petition No. (OP) 12020 of 1998 and OP 3444 of 1998, by the appellant herein before the Kerala High Court challenging the validity of the notifications issued by the respondent, which also were dismissed by the High Court under the impugned judgment and order. 7. 6. Be it also mentioned that two writ petitions were filed, being Writ Petition No. (OP) 12020 of 1998 and OP 3444 of 1998, by the appellant herein before the Kerala High Court challenging the validity of the notifications issued by the respondent, which also were dismissed by the High Court under the impugned judgment and order. 7. Since we have set aside the entire judgment and order passed in the aforesaid STRs, the judgment and order passed in the said writ petitions are also set aside and the writ petitions are restored to the file of the High Court. 8. The parties are given liberty to adduce additional evidence, if any, before the High Court by way of additional documents as also by filing fresh affidavits and further replies/rejoinder thereto. The State of Kerala as also the appellant would be at liberty to file such additional documents or affidavits in terms of the said order on or before June 15, 2011 and it shall also be open to the parties to file any additional documents in response to the documents filed as stated hereinbefore, before July 15, 2011. The aforesaid additional documents and affidavits, if filed by the parties shall be accepted by the High Court. It shall also be open to the parties to raise additional issues/questions of law before the High Court by filing proper affidavits in that regard in terms of this order. 9. The parties shall also apply and make a request to the Chief Justice of Kerala High Court to assign an appropriate Bench to hear the aforesaid revisions as also the writ petitions so restored by this order to the file of the High Court. Since the issues arising in the revisions and writ petitions are almost identical, they shall be heard together by the High Court. 10. It shall also be open to the parties to request the appropriate Bench after allotment for early hearing. We also request the High Court to hear the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the records of this case. 11. So far the amount of Rs. 10. It shall also be open to the parties to request the appropriate Bench after allotment for early hearing. We also request the High Court to hear the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the records of this case. 11. So far the amount of Rs. 13,19,11,404/- (Rupees thirteen crores nineteen lakhs eleven thousand four hundred and four only), which was deposited by MRF in terms of order of this Court dated 27.1.2009 in SLP (C) No. 909 of 2009 is concerned, the said amount shall continue to remain with the Department as deposit till the matter is finally decided by the High Court. The liberty is also granted to the parties to apply to this Court for appropriate orders, if there be any occasion for the same, but only after October 31, 2011. 12. Civil appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order and observations." 5. On behalf of the State, the learned Advocate General argued that the materials on record show that the practice being followed by the assessee is that they purchase rubber and use the same in the manufacture of compound rubber and compound rubber so manufactured is transferred to their units outside the State of Kerala from where they manufacture tyres and tubes. The argument is that the only manufacturing activity carried on within the State by the assessee is that of compound rubber which is not a finished product as defined in the notification granting concessional rate and that compound rubber is not a finished rubber product for the purpose of the notification granting concessional rate. Making reference to the Apex Courts afore-quoted order of remand dated 28.04.2011, reference is made to the documents produced by the State as Annexures A1 to A17 after the remand. Those documents are received as evidence in terms of the order of remand. On the basis of those materials, it is argued on behalf of the State that its specific contention is that what is manufactured by the assessee within the State, by whatever name it is called by the assessee, is a compound of rubber, excluded from the definition of finished product in terms of the concessional rate notification. On the basis of those materials, it is argued on behalf of the State that its specific contention is that what is manufactured by the assessee within the State, by whatever name it is called by the assessee, is a compound of rubber, excluded from the definition of finished product in terms of the concessional rate notification. It is further argued that the assessee, by the use of the terms rubber compound and compound rubber; alternatively, for the product manufactured by them within the State, belies its contention and lends credibility to the stand of the State on that issue, which is primarily a question of fact. 6. Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee in the captioned revisions argued that the effect of the remand order issued by the Apex Court is that the factual findings recorded by the Appellate Tribunal stand confirmed subject to any additional evidence that the State may produce to rebut those findings of the Appellate Tribunal. It is argued that the materials on record show that rubber compound manufactured by the assessee is a finished rubber product and is distinct and different from compound of rubber and that the said finding of the Appellate Tribunal stands further substantiated by the evidence produced as Annexures R1(a) to R1(t) after remand. Those documents produced after the Apex Courts order are taken on record following the directions contained in that order of remand. 7. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the assessee in the original petitions argued that the decisions impugned in those original petitions have been rendered on grounds never put to the notice of the assessee and if the concessional notification is construed in the manner in which it has been done by the Department, that would amount to hostile discrimination violative of the equality doctrine in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further argued that the impugned decisions were issued without reference to the grounds raised before the authority concerned, while reference has been made therein to different matters which were never raised or relevant for consideration. He also adopted the submissions made on behalf of the assessee by the learned Senior counsel in the revisions. 8. It is further argued that the impugned decisions were issued without reference to the grounds raised before the authority concerned, while reference has been made therein to different matters which were never raised or relevant for consideration. He also adopted the submissions made on behalf of the assessee by the learned Senior counsel in the revisions. 8. It is settled principle that where the order of remand lays down limits for the enquiry to be made by the lower court, that court ought to confine to questions which fall within those limits. The exercise of jurisdiction by the lower court to which an order of remand is made depends on specifications of the order of remand. It is not open to any of the parties or to the court below to enlarge the scope of the remand order. To do otherwise would be destructive of all tenets of judicial discipline and will strike at the root of the efficacy and binding nature of an order of a superior court. Even when a matter is remitted to High Court by the Supreme Court, if the High Court assumes wider field of jurisdiction than one which has been permitted by the Supreme Court through the order of remand, and thereby enters into examining the whole controversy afresh and as if all contentions of all parties are open before it, such a view would not be countenanced. See: Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai [ AIR 2004 SC 1815 ]. The law laid through that precedent is authority for the proposition that when an order of remand is made by the superior court for the purpose of considering certain aspects, the court to which the case is remitted cannot assume a wider field of jurisdiction than the one which is permitted by the superior court through the remand order. The court below is bound by the order of remand and cannot examine the whole controversy afresh, as if all the contentions of all the parties were open before it. Such an approach by a court below would not be countenanced. That was a case where the Apex Court was dealing with the effect of an order of remand made by it to a High Court. Such an approach by a court below would not be countenanced. That was a case where the Apex Court was dealing with the effect of an order of remand made by it to a High Court. For further support, see Budhilal vs. Jagannathdas, AIR 1963 MP 344 rendered holding that when limits for enquiry are laid down by an order of remand, the court to which the case is remanded would have no jurisdiction to enter into questions falling outside those limits. 9. Bearing in mind the aforenoted principles of law relating orders of remand, we see that the remand order was issued by the Apex Court after holding, in paragraph No. 4 thereof that a finding has to be recorded as to whether or not rubber compound or compound of rubber are two different and distinct articles or they are the same article. Their Lordships also noted that in order to decide the said issue, which appears to be very technical, sufficient evidence is required to be led. The entire evidence available until that stage by way of affidavits were adverted to by the Apex Court and it was recorded that Their Lordships do not find any evidence having been led by the State in support of its case that the articles manufactured by the assessee is compound of rubber and not rubber compound. Resultantly, the parties were given liberty to adduce additional evidence, if any, before this Court by way of additional documents as also by filing fresh affidavits and further replies/rejoinders thereto. The State and the assessee were given liberty to file such additional documents or affidavits in furtherance to that order of remand and also in response to further documents that may be produced by either side. The High Court was directed to accept such additional documents and affidavits. It was also left open to the parties to raise additional issues/questions of law before the High Court by filing proper affidavits in that regard. The judgment/order dated 18.12.2008 issued by this Court was accordingly set aside and the order of remand was issued. The scope of enquiry following such order of remand would necessarily stand guided by the directions contained in the order of remand. 10. In obedience to the terms of the remand order, the documents and affidavits placed on record by the State and the assessee have been received and incorporated. The scope of enquiry following such order of remand would necessarily stand guided by the directions contained in the order of remand. 10. In obedience to the terms of the remand order, the documents and affidavits placed on record by the State and the assessee have been received and incorporated. The liberty given to the parties through the order of remand to raise additional issues/questions of law has been effectuated permitting three additional questions of law being raised. The question of law suggested for consideration through these memorandum of revisions is as to whether the Tribunal had erred in fact and in law in holding that rubber compound processed by the assessee is not the same as compound of rubber. In other words, the plea projected is that the Tribunal ought to have held that rubber compound and compound of rubber are one and the same commodity and, therefore, rubber compound is not a rubber product within the meaning of the notifications. The question of law suggested through the amendment is as to whether the Tribunal committed an error in law and in fact in not correctly construing the words any other similar process as comprehensive and descriptive of the processing undertaken by mixing with chemical, gas, fumigation as to take within its purview the process held out by the assessee as the one undertaken by it, since the resultant product of the process of the assessee is only a raw material which goes into manufacture of tyres, tubes and flaps which are manufactured by the assessee outside the State of Kerala. It is also pointed out that the Government has consciously and intentionally included "any compound of rubber" as falling outside the purview of the notifications and the Tribunal, therefore, erred in law in concluding that the process undertaken by the assessee for the production of compound of rubber or rubber compound would lead to a product eligible for concessional rate. The question as to whether the Tribunal has erred in law and has thereby failed to give effect to the intention of the Government in issuing the notification under consideration is projected as an issue for decision. 11. After remand, the State filed documents identified as Annexures A1 to A17. In the affidavit filed in support of reception of those documents as evidence, an affidavit was sworn to by the Deputy Commissioner (Law) on behalf of the Department. 11. After remand, the State filed documents identified as Annexures A1 to A17. In the affidavit filed in support of reception of those documents as evidence, an affidavit was sworn to by the Deputy Commissioner (Law) on behalf of the Department. In the affidavit dated 15.06.2011, it is stated that as per SRO No. 641 of 1981 issued under Section 10 of the KGST Act, a reduction in the rate of tax as concession was provided on the purchase of rubber used for the manufacture of finished rubber products within the State. It proceeds to say that the practice being followed by the assessee is that they purchase rubber and use the same for the manufacture of compound rubber and compound rubber thus manufactured is being transferred to their units at Chennai and Goa, i.e. outside the State of Kerala, from where they are manufacturing tyres and tubes, and that, in short, the manufacturing activity carried on within the State is that of compound rubber which is not a "finished product" as defined in the notification granting concessional rate. It is pointed out that the question for decision is as to whether the assessee is entitled to concessional rate of tax on the purchase of rubber which is used for the manufacture of compound rubber. The order of remand issued by the Honourable Supreme Court is reiterated pointing out that what is required is that a finding has to be rendered as to whether or not rubber compound and compound of rubber are two different and distinct articles or they are the same article. Annexure A1, A2, A3 and A4 are returns and statements filed by the assessee to show that the assessee uses the words compound of rubber and rubber compound. Annexure A5 is a certificate issued by the Additional Director of Industries and Commerce stating that the term "Rubber Product" is generally meant for finished rubber products such as tyres, moulded rubber goods, footwear, hoses etc. and rubber compound is a semi-processed material which is the result of the mixing together of a number of compounding ingredients (rubber chemicals, fillers, process oils etc.) and that this process of mixing together is known as the process of compounding. The certificate proceeds to say that the process of manufacturing of rubber product is completed only by vulcanization of the compound or semi-processed material, usually by the incorporation of sulphur. The certificate proceeds to say that the process of manufacturing of rubber product is completed only by vulcanization of the compound or semi-processed material, usually by the incorporation of sulphur. Annexure A6 is a certificate issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, which has certified that the assessee has been producing masticated rubber by mixing raw rubber with carbon black and chemicals and the said item is classified with the description "compounded rubber" in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Annexure A7 is the print out said to be from what has been down loaded from wikipedia in relation to tyre manufacturing. It reads as follows:- "Tyre plants are traditionally divided into five departments that perform special operations. These usually act as independent factories within a factory. Large tyre makers may set up independent factories on a single site, or cluster the factories locally across a region." That material shows, among other things, that tyre manufacturing process is traditionally divided into five departments that perform special operations. These usually act as independent factories within a factory. Large tyre makers may set up independent factories on a single site, or cluster the factories locally across a region. Compounding is the operation of bringing together all the ingredients required to mix a batch of rubber compound. Each component has a different mix of ingredients according to the properties required for that component. This material relied on by the State definitely goes to show that different ingredients go into the process of compounding and the activity is one of mixing those ingredients in the required proportion with rubber depending upon the properties required for that component. Annexure A8 to A17 are produced by the State to show that through those returns, statements, objections etc., the assessee had claimed exemption of compounded rubber from finished product of the assessee. 12. Annexure R1(a) is an affidavit of Dr.Eby Thomas Thachil, who has averred therein that he holds a doctorate (Ph.D) in Polymer Technology from IIT, Madras and at the time of swearing that affidavit, he was the Head of the Department of Polymer Science and Rubber Technology in the Cochin University of Science and Technology and by then, had 28 years of experience in teaching Rubber Technology and that he has indepth knowledge in processing and manufacturing of Compound Rubber. He says that he had read the relevant notifications while he was requested by the assessee to provide an affidavit of his use. He states therein that compound rubber is a rubber product and says that it is universally accepted as a rubber product manufactured from natural rubber, scientific rubber, chemicals, including activators, curatives, fillers like carbon black, silica and process oil as raw materials. He elaborates on the process and further, enumerates "Fillers" and their application, and also the Processing Aids like process oil, wax etc., which are petroleum products used in the manufacture of compound rubber. He concludes his affidavit by specifically stating as follows:- "Hence, the Compound Rubber is a product manufactured from Rubber (both Natural and Synthetic), Chemicals, Fillers and Process Aids. Compound Rubber cannot be manufactured by mixing rubber with chemicals alone. Compound Rubber is commercially and technically different from Raw Materials like Rubber etc. The Compound Rubber is definitely a manufactured product and will not come under the category of items mentioned as excluded in Notification S.R.O. No. 505 of 1995. This is supported by the Explanatory Note to the Notification." 13. Rubber Board is established under the provisions of the Rubber Act, 1947. Annexure R1(b) affidavit of the Corporate Manager of the assessee is filed placing therewith the certificate dated 13.06.2011 issued by Sri. S. Mohanachandran Nair, Director (Processing and Product Development), Rubber Board. That certificate is to the following effect:- "TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN A certificate bearing even No. dated 1st January 1996 was issued to M/s. MRF Ltd. on their request to give clarification on the nature of Compound Rubber manufactured at their Vadavathoor Factory as to whether it is a Rubber Product and different from Compound of Rubber as mentioned in Govt. of Kerala Notification SRO No. 505/95 read with SRO No. 1728 of 1993. Accordingly, the relevant notifications were examined and the process of manufacture of Compound Rubber by M/s. MRF Ltd. at their above facility was studied before issue of the said certificate. As there has been no change in the manufacturing activity of Compound Rubber at their Vadavathoor Factory, its process of manufacture remains the same and is summarized below. Accordingly, the relevant notifications were examined and the process of manufacture of Compound Rubber by M/s. MRF Ltd. at their above facility was studied before issue of the said certificate. As there has been no change in the manufacturing activity of Compound Rubber at their Vadavathoor Factory, its process of manufacture remains the same and is summarized below. For the manufacture of Compound Rubber, Masticated Natural Rubber is fed into heavy duty machinery like Banbury and mixed with chemicals like anti-oxidants, activators, accelerators and fillers like carbon black, silica along with process aids like rubber process oil. When this process is complete, the percentage content of natural rubber in the new product is substantially reduced and the nature of rubber molecules is also altered to lower molecular stage resulting in the formation of a different product viz Compound Rubber. The Compound Rubber so obtained is a finished rubber product which is quite different from Compound of Rubber. It is confirmed that Compound of rubber refers to primary processed rubber with chemicals like peptiser in masticated rubber, ammonia in ammoniated latex and phosphoric acid in block rubber." 14. Annexure R1(c) is the affidavit of Dr. N.M. Mathew, who is the Chairman of the Indian Rubber Institute (Kerala Branch) and Executive Director of Rubber Research Institute of India. He holds Masters Degree in Chemistry from Kerala University and Ph.D in Rubber Technology from Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur and is a Licentiate of Plastics and Rubber Institute, U.K. He has described the various Institutions and the posts in which he has worked. He affirms that he had visited the factory of the assessee with a view to observe the processes adopted by them for the manufacture of compound rubber. It is apposite to quote the following from Annexure R1(c) affidavit:- "3. I further state that, at the request of MRF Limited, I had visited their factory at Kottayam, on 8th June 2011 with a view to observe the processes adopted by them for the manufacture of compound rubber. I found that the following processes are being adopted by them for this purpose. The manufacture of compound rubber consists of different stages. The first stage is subjecting the raw rubber to mastication, crushing or breaking down between two rotating rollers using mechanical friction which is hastened by adding chemicals called peptizers and softening agents. I found that the following processes are being adopted by them for this purpose. The manufacture of compound rubber consists of different stages. The first stage is subjecting the raw rubber to mastication, crushing or breaking down between two rotating rollers using mechanical friction which is hastened by adding chemicals called peptizers and softening agents. The broken down (BD) or masticated rubber thus prepared is a compound of rubber. Thus the compound of rubber, made by the simple process of mastication with chemicals is completed at this stage and then it is sent for carrying out the subsequent stages. This operation of mastication is conducted either in this factory or in mixing units engaged by MRF on job work. The 2nd stage of manufacture starts with feeding the BD rubber (compound of rubber) into a sophisticated heavy duty machine called Banbury. Synthetic rubber, reclaimed rubber, chemicals like antioxidant, activators, and other allied materials are added, after weighing in chemical/weighing balances, into the machine using loading/charging conveyor. Using the carbon black handling system, carbon black, the reinforcing filler, is added into the Banbury. Process oil is introduced into the machine through a specifically designed oil injection system. Other fillers such as silica and clay are loaded through the hopper door of the machine. The mixing operation for manufacture of compound rubber is taking place inside the enclosed chamber of the Banbury machine, having rotors with specially designed contoured wing, which rotate in opposite directions and subjected to pneumatically controlled ram pressure. The entire process is controlled through a sophisticated computer system. The downstream equipment consists of the chute, two-roll mills, tank with separating agents and auto batch off unit. At the third stage, the output material from the Banbury, in a lump form, is transmitted to a battery of two-roll mills/extruders and is subjected to further processing at a specified temperature into a sheet form. The sheet is then immersed in a tank containing a solution of separating agent. The material is thereafter transmitted from the separating agent tank to a machine called Autobatch, where it is subjected to drying and cooling and then stored for further processing. In the fourth stage, the material is mixed with other chemicals such as curatives in another Banbury machine at lower temperature than in the second stage. The material is thereafter transmitted from the separating agent tank to a machine called Autobatch, where it is subjected to drying and cooling and then stored for further processing. In the fourth stage, the material is mixed with other chemicals such as curatives in another Banbury machine at lower temperature than in the second stage. The output from this machine is processed into sheet form using another set of two roll mills and again passed through a tank containing separating agent solution and finally dried and cooled in another Autobatch unit and stored on metal skids till dispatch. It was also observed that rigorous process control tests are conducted at every stage of manufacture using sophisticated testing equipment such as Mooney viscometer, Moving Die Rheometer, Tensile Testing Machine, density measuring system etc. in order to ensure that the product conforms to the specified quality standards. Thus the manufacture of Compound Rubber is done in different stages in different types of machinery and using precise process control and quality control systems. This material is black in colour and is entirely different from the original compound of rubber in chemical composition, molecular weight, molecular weight distribution, specific gravity, processability etc. I find that the manpower employed is about 600 and investment over 50 crore for this manufacturing plant with huge Banbury machines of different capacities and a series of other machines/equipment. 4. Based on my knowledge of rubber products and technical expertise in the subject, I state that the Compound Rubber manufactured by MRF Limited at their factory in Kottayam is technically and commercially different and distinct from the raw materials used in its manufacture. The said product can only be produced by a manufacturing activity using sophisticated machinery and is distinct and different from an ordinary compound of rubber that can be produced by subjecting raw rubber to simple processes such as mixing with chemicals. A compound of rubber that is obtained through a simple processing of raw rubber/latex is cream to amber or brown in colour and retains all the essential characteristics of raw rubber and cannot be categorized as commercially distinct and different from the starting raw material." 15. Annexure R1(d) is by a person who is the Director of a Company, which, going by that affidavit, is involved in the manufacture of compound rubber. Annexure R1(d) is by a person who is the Director of a Company, which, going by that affidavit, is involved in the manufacture of compound rubber. That affidavit says inter alia that the said company manufactures compound rubber using raw rubber, carbon black, chemicals and softeners in sophisticated mixing machinery to take out the compounded rubber for sale, and the manufacture involved value addition of about 30% more than the value of rubber, and the product is used by the buyers for making Tread Rubber, Tyre, Battery case etc. Similar is Annexures R1(e), R1(f) and R1(g), which are the affidavits of the Managing Directors of Forbes Ewart and Figgis Pvt. Ltd. and Pottekkattu Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. and the proprietor of Island Rubbers, respectively, all of which stand to affirm that compound rubber is a different and distinct product which is a commodity sold as such, as well. Annexure R1(h) is a certification by a Chartered Accountant. Certain photographs of the manufacturing unit are produced supported by affidavits as Annexures R1(i) and R1(j), respectively. Annexures R1(k) to R1(o) are notification SRO 641/81, assessment order, order of the Tribunal, reply given by the assessee to pre-assessment notice, Chartered Accountants certification showing the cost worksheet of broken down rubber and compound rubber etc. Tariff Advice No. 37/78 of Central Board of Excise and Customs clarifying that raw rubber mixed with carbon black and will be masticated rubber, is produced as Annexure R1(p). Annexure R1(q) is the affidavit of Dr.Sabu Thomas, Professor and Director of School of Chemical Science, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala, who holds B.Tech degree in Polymer Science and Rubber Technology from Cochin University of Science and Technology and Ph.D in Polymer Engineering from Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. He had also worked in Bata India Ltd. and Bayer India Ltd. He says that during his initial years at Mahatma Gandhi University, he was post-doctoral fellow at the Molecular Science and Engineering Research Centre of Laval University, Canada and was an invited visiting Professor to many Polymer Research Laboratories in Europe and Asia, and that he is a fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, London; member of the American Chemical Society, Rubber Division; member of New York Academy of Sciences and a lifetime member of the Society of Polymer Technologists, Cochin University of Science and Technology. He says that he has supervised 60 Ph.D thesis, 15 M.Phil thesis and 15 Master thesis and has published papers to his credit. He has also more than 25 years of experience in the field of Polymer Science and Technology and is conversant with rubber and its various processing and manufacturing. The affidavit is filed differing with the contents of Annexure A5 certificate of Dr. K.A. Jose, Additional Director of Industries and Commerce, which was referred to him by the assessee for opinion. He has differed with the conclusion of Dr. K.A. Jose and has stated that rubber products could also be made without vulcanization. He further states that sulphur is not an essential ingredient for the manufacture of finished rubber product and that there are a number of rubber products in the market which are not vulcanized or cured such as Tread rubber, Rubber gum, Repair materials, Rubber paint, Compound rubber etc. 16. Having regard to the materials produced by both the sides after the order of remand, it cannot but be said that the overwhelming scientific opinion coming through the experts in the field of rubber and polymer technology is that compound of rubber or rubber compound, which is the product of the assessees unit in question, is a finished rubber product. It is a product made by bringing together all of the ingredients required to make a component, according to the required properties. This component is essentially a finished rubber product and is not merely one which is a result of mixing with chemicals, gas, fumigation etc. or any other process similar to mixing with chemicals, gas, fumigation etc. As would be reflected from the affidavit filed on behalf of the Department after remand and referred to in paragraph No. 11 above, what the Department appears to suggest is that whatever comes out of the process in the assessees unit within the State is only an intermediary product to be ultimately utilised in the manufacturing process of the assessee in its business of production of tyres and tubes, which activity is carried out outside the State. If this suggestion is to be accepted, we have to dispel the credibility and evidentiary value of the views of the experts that the processing of rubber in such manner as is noted in those affidavits is a process of manufacture and such activity need not by itself conclude in the production of tyres and tubes. The product that comes out of the process in the assessees unit in Kerala is itself a rubber product which has to be treated as finished one for the purpose for which it is put to use, including by persons who purchase it as such. The evidence by way of affidavits of experts tendered on behalf of the assessee corroborates each other and the evidentiary value of such evidence of experts clearly outweighs the views in Annexure A5 certificate. When evidence of experts are tendered and when the expertise of the persons tendering such evidence is also established, such materials can be rebutted only through such contra evidence as could be held to be of more evidentiary value on comparison by competitive evaluation by a duly informed adjudicator. See for support, the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Collector of Central Excise, Baroda vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 1989 (43) ELT 214 . There is no rebuttal evidence from the side of the State discharging its burden which it carried following the clear terms of the order of remand made by the Apex Court. 17. There is a suggestion through the additional questions of law sought to be raised by the State that the term "any other similar process" occurred in SRO No. 641 of 1981 is expansive in content and, therefore, the exclusion from out of the term "finished rubber product" as contained in SRO No. 1516 of 1990 should be understood as much more than those materials which would fall within processing by mixing with chemicals, gas, fumigation etc.. This does not appeal to us because the views of the experts which are on record through the affidavits noted above categorically point to the fact that the process of manufacture of compounded rubber is itself a manufacturing process and stands resulting in the manufacture of a product which is a finished product. The material evidence including the affidavits clearly show that different dealers are involved in commercial transactions of compounded rubber as a product itself. 18. The material evidence including the affidavits clearly show that different dealers are involved in commercial transactions of compounded rubber as a product itself. 18. Though not directly relatable to the field of levy of sales tax, including grant of exemptions or reductions in the rate of sales tax, we think that it is apposite to look into the provisions of the Rubber Act, 1947; also to note the priority that could be given to some of the affidavits and certificates which have come from the Institutions and Officers connected with Rubber Board, which holds under that Act. 19. Legislative history would show that the Indian Rubber Production Board was set up in 1942 with the object of encouraging and ensuring increased production of rubber by all possible means, taking into consideration that rubber had then become a scarce commodity. The Order of 1942 under which that Board was constituted, was replaced by the Rubber Control and Production Order, 1946. Later it was found necessary that on the termination of the 1946 Order, a statutory organisation should be set up to look after the interests of the rubber producers in India and the functions of that statutory organisation will include, steps, inter alia, to promote research and do all such other things, as may be necessary, for the development of the industry. The Rubber Act 1947 thus came into being. With effect from 01.08.1955, that Act was amended to provide the development of the rubber industry to be under the control of the Union. The purposes of that Act and its amendment through Act 54 of 1982, among other things, are to provide for promotion of research and all such other things, as are necessary for the development of the rubber industry. 20. The duties of the Rubber Board under the Rubber Act, 1947 is to promote such measures, as it thinks fit, for the development of the rubber industry. The enumerated indicators of such duties in Section 8(2) of the Rubber Act include scientific, technological and economic research; improving the marketing of rubber; advising the Central Government on all matters relating to the development of the rubber industry etc. The views of the Rubber Board as reflected through the affidavits and certificates are, therefore, of abundant relevance. 21. The enumerated indicators of such duties in Section 8(2) of the Rubber Act include scientific, technological and economic research; improving the marketing of rubber; advising the Central Government on all matters relating to the development of the rubber industry etc. The views of the Rubber Board as reflected through the affidavits and certificates are, therefore, of abundant relevance. 21. Without ignoring the principle that an interpretation clause of one legislation is primarily meant to define the terms in that statute, it is worthwhile for the purpose of this case to look into few definitions under Section 3 of the Rubber Act, since that is a comprehensive legislation dealing with matters relating to different aspects of rubber including pricing, marketing and all measures as are to be promoted for the development of the rubber industry. Clause (h) of Section 3 of the Rubber Act provides the definition for rubber:- "Rubber, means:- (i) Crude rubber, that is to say, rubber prepared from the leaves, bark or latex of any rubber plant. (ii) The latex of any rubber plant whether fluid or coagulated, in any stage of the treatment to which it is subjected during the process of conversion into rubber. (iii) Latex (dry rubber content) in any state of concentration, and includes scrap rubber, sheet rubber, rubber in powder and all forms and varieties of crepe rubber, but does not include rubber contained in any manufactured article." Section 3(e) defines manufacturer. It reads as follows:- "Manufacturer means any person engaged in the manufacture of any article in the making of which rubber is used." The term dealer is defined in that Act, linking with the definition of rubber. This is what is available in clause (b) of Section 3, which reads as follows:- "Dealer, means any person who deals in rubber, whether wholesale or retail or holds stock of rubber, and includes the representative or agent of a dealer." Section 3(i) enumerates the different types of rubber plants for the purpose of that Act. 22. The aforenoted provisions eminently evidence the distinction between any article in the making of which rubber is used and "rubber" which is in any form of rubber, but not including rubber contained in any manufactured article. These statutory materials carry relevant evidentiary value to show that any manufactured article would not be treated as rubber, even if it contains rubber. The aforenoted provisions eminently evidence the distinction between any article in the making of which rubber is used and "rubber" which is in any form of rubber, but not including rubber contained in any manufactured article. These statutory materials carry relevant evidentiary value to show that any manufactured article would not be treated as rubber, even if it contains rubber. Therefore, when the process of mixing rubber with chemicals, gas, fumigation or any other similar processes results in compound of rubber or rubber compound, it apparently goes out of the term of rubber as understood in the parlance of statute law, at least from 1947, when the Rubber Act came into force. Any article which is one resulting out of a process which turns rubber from its different facets noted in clause 3(h) of the Rubber Act, to an article which does not fall under that definition, it will be a manufactured article; and the rubber included in which will not be treated as rubber under the primary legislation dealing with rubber after bringing that matter under the control of the Union through Union legislation leading to the Rubber Act. Statutory provisions of the Rubber Act appreciated in the context of the objects of that Act and the expertise of the persons who give effect to the purposes of that Act, unequivocally, show that the conclusions resulting out of the discussions made hereinabove based on the materials on record are at par with the concept of manufacture and the use of the term rubber by the people who are expected to be conversant with those terms in relation to rubber, on the basis of utility, production, consumption etc. 23. The result of the aforesaid discussions is that while the State has failed to show that the article manufactured by the assessee is compound of rubber and not a rubber compound, the assessee has succeeded in establishing that what it manufactures through its unit in relation to which the impugned assessments were made is a finished product, by whatever name it is called, and such finished rubber product is one that does not fall within the exclusion made by SRO No. 1516 of 1990 and hence, the assessee is entitled to reduced rate of tax on the purchase of rubber for the manufacture of that product which is manufactured in its unit within the State of Kerala. Having held as aforesaid, on an interpretation of the notifications and by answering the questions formulated and remitted for consideration through the remand order of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, an independent consideration of the grounds raised in the captioned original petitions are not called for. They also stand concluded by the findings herein. In the result, the captioned sales tax revisions are dismissed confirming the impugned decision of the Tribunal; and, the original petitions are allowed in part declaring that the petitioner/assessee is entitled to the benefit of SRO No. 641 of 1981 notwithstanding SRO No. 1516 of 1990 and is therefore bound to pay tax only at reduced rate on the purchase of rubber for the manufacture of its product through its unit to which the assessments leading to the captioned sales tax revisions relate; be the product called compound of rubber or rubber compound.