JUDGMENT Yashwant Varma, J. -- The sole question which falls for consideration in this revision is whether the article 'Makka Pawi' would stand exempted by virtue of the provisions of Entry-8 of Schedule-1 to the UP Vat Act 2008. 2. The revisionsit a registered dealer is engaged in the manufacture of 'Makka Poha' and contended that since 'maize' (macca) stood mentioned in the category of exempted goods, no tax was liable to be imposed. Further reliance was sought to be placed on an order of the Commissioner dated 14.07.2010 which had proceeded to hold that there was no difference between 'Makka Poha' and 'Makka Kachri' and therefore both were liable to be treated as unclassified items and consequently taxed at 12.5%. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the mention of 'maize' in the list of exempted category of goods would therefore necessarily commend the Department to consider all processed forms of 'maize' (macca) or derivative goods also to be exempted. 4. This Court is unable to accept the said contention inasmuch as Entry-8 as well as Schedule-1 only refers to 'maize' (macca) as exempted. The entry does not expand the exemption to derivative or processed forms of 'maize'. Regard may be had to the fact that Entry 8 employs the word 'maize (macca)' and not 'goods of' or products of' maize (macca). Even otherwise, this Court finds that the Tribunal in the order impugned has proceeded to hold that applying both the common parlance test as well as the test of identity of a commodity as commercially understood, ''maize' and 'Makka Pawa' are different and distinct commodities. The revisionist has been unable to dispel this finding of the Tribunal. 5. Accordingly this revision lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.