JUDGMENT : Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. This order will dispose of VATAP Nos. 44, 45, 101, 102, 132, 133, 143, 165 and 166 of 2012, as the legal issues involved therein are common. 2. The facts have been noticed from VATAP No. 44 of 2012. The appeal has been filed by M/s Haryana Pump Manufacturers Association raising the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in holding that submersible pumps are covered under Entry 71A of Schedule 'C' and not under Entry 1(D)(9) of Schedule 'B', appended to the HVAT Act, 2003 and therefore taxable @ 4%? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of Financial Commissioner that submersible pumps are classified under residual entry for the period upto 30.6.2006 when there was no competing entry in Schedule 'C'? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in holding that the order of Financial Commissioner that submersible pumps are classified under Entry 71A of Schedule 'C' after the introduction of Note 4 to Schedule 'C' w.e.f. 1.1.2006? 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the submersible pumps being manufactured by the members of the appellant's association were exempted from taxation in view of Entry 1(D)(9) of Schedule 'B' of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act'). Vide notification dated June 20, 2006, Schedule 'C' appended to the Act was amended. Entry No. 71-A was added providing for pumps set below 5 HP. As confusion arose regarding taxability of the pump sets, the same being mentioned even in Schedule 'B' providing for tax free goods, application was filed to the State Government under Section 56(3) of the Act for seeking clarification as to whether the submersible pumps would be covered under Entry No.71-A of Schedule 'C' of the Act, w.e.f. 01.07.2006. Though the issue raised was in the above terms, however, still the Government while answering the query besides opining that Submersible pumps below 5 HP are covered under Entry 71-A Schedule 'C' also opined that these are liable to be taxed @ 12.5% upto June 30, 2006 and @ 4% w.e.f. 01.07.2006. Opinion was expressed on the issue on which neither the clarification was sought nor any submissions made. Opinion was expressed on the issue on which neither the clarification was sought nor any submissions made. Aggrieved against that, the appellant preferred appeal before the Haryana Tax Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), who vide order dated 4.10.2011 dismissed the same. It is against the aforesaid order that the present appeal has been preferred by the Association. 4. In the other appeals, orders passed by the Tribunal have been challenged wherein for the period upto June 30, 2006 on submersible pumps upto 5 HP, tax has been levied. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Schedule 'B' appended to the Act provides for description of goods which are tax free. Entry-1 in the aforesaid Schedule contains agricultural implements and irrigation equipments used for agricultural purposes. Sub entry 'D' therein provides for power implement and item No.9 contained therein provides for agricultural pumping sets of all kinds including submersible pumps. It also contains list of various components thereof. All the items mentioned in Entry No.9 are tax free. The submission is that the submersible pumps of all kinds mentioned in the entry included submersible pumps upto 5 HP, hence, are exempted from tax. It was being so understood and implemented by the authorities under the Act. Amendment was carried out in Schedule 'C' appended to the Act. Item No.71-A was added regarding submersible pumps upto 5 HP. The issue arose at that stage for which the appellant sought clarification. Before addition of Entry 71-A in Schedule 'C', there was no distinction with reference to capacity of pumping sets for the purpose of exemption. The parts of the pumping sets as have been mentioned in Entry 1(D)(9) of Schedule 'B' cannot be read to mean that submersible pumps upto capacity of 5 HP would be taxable. 6. It was further submitted that once same item is contained in two entries, the one more beneficial to the assessee is to be preferred. As the submersible pumps are mentioned in Entry 1(D)(9) of Schedule 'B' containing tax free items and also Entry 71-A of Schedule 'C' providing for taxable goods, the Entry contained in Schedule 'B' regarding submersible pumps is to be preferred. 7. It was further submitted that when the goods can be covered in a specific entry, there is no need to go to the residual entry. 7. It was further submitted that when the goods can be covered in a specific entry, there is no need to go to the residual entry. Onus is on the Revenue to establish that the goods fall in a particular entry for the purpose of taxability. If there is any doubt, the benefit is to go to the assessee. There is no scope for any intendment in a taxing statute. 8. In support of the arguments, reliance was placed upon CWP No. 14869 of 2006 titled as Excise and Taxation Officer Vs. M/s T.R. Solvent Oil Pvt. Ltd. and another decided on 24.9.2010 (P&H); Siemens India Limited Vs. The State of Gujarat, 1984 (57) STC 1 (Gujarat); Engineering Traders Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (1973) 31 STC 456 (Allahabad); Karnal Machinery Store Vs. The Assessing Authority, Karnal and others, (1973) 31 STC 3 (P&H); Dunlop India Ltd. and Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1566 (S.C.); Bharat Forge and Press Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C.Ex., 1990 (45) E.L.T. 525 (S.C.); Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta Vs. Calcutta Springs Ltd., 2008 (229) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.); Civil Appeal No. 8656 of 2015, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Marico Industries Ltd., Decided on 22.7.2016 (SC); Union of India Vs. Garware Nylons Ltd. 1996 (87) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.); and Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, 1997 (89) E.L.T., 16 (S.C.). 9. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submitted that Entry 1(D)(9) as contained in Schedule 'B' is to be read in totality. The items mentioned therein as parts are also to be considered. It clearly mentions about the electric/diesel pump sets of 5 HP and above. This has to be read with the pumping sets. Meaning thereby the pumping sets having capacity of 5 HP and above were exempted from tax upto June 30, 2006 and not below that. The only question raised before the Tribunal was regarding the status of taxability of submersible pumps w.e.f. 1.7.2006. Addition of 71-A in Schedule 'C' was made only on receipt of the representation of the association as earlier the pumping sets were being taxed @ 12.5%. The onus is not on the State rather it is on the assessees as they are trying to claim that the goods manufactured by them fall in Schedule 'B'. 10. Addition of 71-A in Schedule 'C' was made only on receipt of the representation of the association as earlier the pumping sets were being taxed @ 12.5%. The onus is not on the State rather it is on the assessees as they are trying to claim that the goods manufactured by them fall in Schedule 'B'. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 11. Relevant entries in Schedules 'B' and 'C' are extracted below: Schedule 'B' Sr. No. Description of goods 1 Agricultural implements and irrigation equipments used for agricultural purposes as detailed below:- D. Power implements 1-8. Non-relevant 9. Agricultural pumping sets of all kinds including submersible pumps and sprinkler irrigation system equipments and drip irrigation system and their following components, namely:- (i) Control units (ii) Fertilizer applicator/injecting equipments (iii) Dripper/Emitter/Mixee/Sprinkler/Spinner (iv) Filteration units:- Mesh/Screen/Sand/Gravel (v) Distribution tube/Micro tube (vi) Built-in-Drip-in-Linear Low Density Polythylene Pipe (vii) Bi-pass tube (viii) Accessories like couplers, joints, bend sockets, pressure gauge, regulators etc. (ix) Valves (x) Prime movers i.e. Electric/diesel pump set of 5 horse power and above with fitting Schedule 'C' 71 A Pump sets below 5 Horsepower. xx xx xx xx (Note 4: Goods of the description contained in this Schedule shall be deemed to have been excluded from Schedule B.) Inserted vide SO 104/HA 6/2003/S. 59/2005, dated 29.12.2005 w.e.f. 29.12.2005.” 12. The appellant in the present case filed application under Section 56(3) of the Act before the State Government seeking clarification on the following issue: ''Whether submersible pumps are covered under entry 71-A of Schedule C of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 amended on 20.6.2006 with effect from 01.07.2006 vide Notification No. S.O. 58/HA/6/2003/S.59/2006.'' 13. A perusal of the aforesaid question shows that the clarification was sought by the appellant on the issue whether the submersible pumps are covered under Entry 71-A of Schedule 'C' as amended on June 20, 2006 effective from 1.7.2006 as prior to that submersible pumps were mentioned only in Entry 1(D)(9) of Schedule 'B' (tax free goods). The government opined that the submersible pumps below 5 HP are covered under Entry 71- A of Schedule 'C' and liable to be taxed @ 4% w.e.f. 01.07.2006. Though no clarification was sought for the period prior thereto but still the government opined that upto June 30, 2006 the rate of tax will be @ 12.5%. The government opined that the submersible pumps below 5 HP are covered under Entry 71- A of Schedule 'C' and liable to be taxed @ 4% w.e.f. 01.07.2006. Though no clarification was sought for the period prior thereto but still the government opined that upto June 30, 2006 the rate of tax will be @ 12.5%. It is the general rate of tax applicable to all the goods not specified in any entry. The opinion of the government was challenged before the Tribunal. The full members of the Tribunal rejected the appeal. 14. What is required to be considered in the present set of appeals is taxability of submersible pumps upto 5 HP upto June 30, 2006 and thereafter. 15. As far as the period upto June 30, 2006 is concerned there is only one entry containing submersible pumps, the same is Entry 1(D)(9) in Schedule 'B', which provides for tax free goods. A perusal of the aforesaid entry shows that it is quite wide in application. It encompasses within it pumping sets of all kinds including submersible pumps and sprinkler irrigation system equipments and drip irrigation system and their specified components. Upto June 30, 2006 there was no other entry containing submersible pump. From a plain reading of the Entry 1(D)(9) in Schedule 'B' it is evident that initially complete systems i.e. (i) pumping sets including submersible pumps; (ii) sprinkler irrigation equipments; (iii) Drip irrigation system, have been mentioned. Thereafter a list of components thereof has been provided. The components as provided in the list can be of use for any of the complete sets meant for the purpose of irrigation as mentioned in the Entry. The list of components cannot be said to be exhaustive in the sense that all different parts used for the complete set of agricultural equipments mentioned in the entry have not been provided. However, the exemption will be available to only those components as mentioned in the list if sold separately. 16. The case of the appellant is that the entry clearly includes pumping sets of all kinds including submersible pumps. However, the exemption will be available to only those components as mentioned in the list if sold separately. 16. The case of the appellant is that the entry clearly includes pumping sets of all kinds including submersible pumps. Hence, even pumps upto 5 HP are included therein whereas the case set up by the State is that once item No. (x) in the list of components electric/diesel pumps set of 5 HP and above is mentioned, that would necessarily mean that the pumping sets only of that capacity would be tax free. In our view, the contention raised by learned counsel for the State is misconceived. The words as contained in the entry have to be given their plain meaning with no addition, subtraction or intendment. Item No.(x) in the list of components is 'prime movers' i.e. Electric/diesel pump set of 5 HP and above with fitting. It is not complete pumping set. It is only one of the component for pumping set. Intention of the legislature is clearly evident that while exempting pumping sets, there was no limit prescribed regarding its capacity, whereas while granting exemption to the components thereof, the limit was prescribed in the case of prime movers. The exemption was available only to the electric/diesel pump sets of 5 HP and above. The entry has to be given its true meaning. 17. In Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. v. M/s A.R. Thermosets (Pvt.) Ltd., 2016(8) Scale 573 , the issue under consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court was the rate of tax on bitumen emulsion. Bitumen is in solid form, whereas bitumen emulsion is in liquid form. Bitumen emulsion is a processed bitumen. It comes into existence when bitumen is treated with emulsifiers and other chemicals to attain a liquid form. The stand taken by the revenue was that the word ''bitumen'' should be given narrow meaning for the reason that the Legislature has not thought it appropriate to use the prefix or suffix like ''all'', in all forms or of all kinds. Bitumen used in the entry is in generic form. It would be erroneous not to cover a product, which is only a type or form of bitumen and retains all its essential characteristics. The contention was rejected as the entry did not suggest as to what is included or excluded. Bitumen used in the entry is in generic form. It would be erroneous not to cover a product, which is only a type or form of bitumen and retains all its essential characteristics. The contention was rejected as the entry did not suggest as to what is included or excluded. Bitumen emulsion was opined to be part of the entry containing 'bitumen', as it was found to be only one of the varieties of bitumen. The revenue's stand that residuary entry should be invoked for taxing bitumen emulsion was rejected, relying upon the principle that 'specific entry would override a general entry'. Reference was made to Collector of Central Excise, Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd., (1995) 3 SCC 454 to opine that resort can be made to a residuary heading when by liberal construction specific Entry cannot cover the goods in question. In this case, electronic cash registers were found to be covered in the entry providing for cash register as one of the goods. 18. As far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant regarding submersible pumps of the capacity upto 5 HP being exempted even after 1.7.2006 despite addition of Entry 71-A in Schedule 'C' is concerned, the contention is misconceived as Note:4 appended to Schedule 'C' clearly provides that the goods of the description contained in Schedule 'C' shall be deemed to have been excluded from Schedule 'B'. 19. Once it is clearly specified in Schedule 'C' itself that whatever contained therein is deemed to have been excluded from Schedule 'B', there is no scope for accepting the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that there are two competing entries one contained in Schedule 'B' and one contained in Schedule 'C' and one more beneficial to the asseesses should be applied as the entries are mutually exclusive. No doubt submersible pumps are mentioned in Entry 1(D)(9) of Schedule 'B', however, with addition of Schedule 71-A in Schedule 'C' providing for taxability of pumping sets below 5 HP, these stood excluded from entry 1(D)(9) of Schedule 'B'. Hence, there cannot be any dispute regarding taxability thereof after 01.07.2006. 20. No doubt submersible pumps are mentioned in Entry 1(D)(9) of Schedule 'B', however, with addition of Schedule 71-A in Schedule 'C' providing for taxability of pumping sets below 5 HP, these stood excluded from entry 1(D)(9) of Schedule 'B'. Hence, there cannot be any dispute regarding taxability thereof after 01.07.2006. 20. As far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the State regarding reduction of tax from 12.5% to 4% on mono block pumps on representation made by association is concerned, from the office file produced by her in Court, it is evident that the matter was considered in the 2nd meeting of the State Level Consultative Committee held on 7.01.2006. The representation was by Manufactures' Association, Faridabad (the appellant in the present case is Haryana Pump Manufacturers Association, Karnal). The demand raised was for reduction of rate of tax from 12.5% to 4%. The proposal clearly suggested that the mono block and other pumping sets were tax free in Haryana while these were being taxed @ 4% in Punjab and Delhi as per E.C. approved rate. The exemption was available to agricultural pumping sets alone. The other pump sets were being taxed @ 12.5%. The proposal was to reduce the rate of tax on non-agricultural mono block and submersible pumps and parts thereof to bring it at par with the rates of taxes in the neighbouring States. 21. In the case in hand the dispute upto 30.6.2006 is not pertaining to pumping sets which are not for agricultural use. Entry 1(D)(9) in Schedule 'B' talks about only agricultural implements and pumping sets are also defined as agricultural pumping sets of all kinds and the issue being considered herein is only regarding taxability of agricultural pumping sets and not other pumping sets. However, the position was changed after addition of Entry 71-A in Schedule 'C'. The proposal in the meeting which was accepted was to tax all types of pumping sets below 5 HP at uniform rate of 4%. The relevant part of the proposal is extracted below:- ''As seen from the table above, mono block and other pump sets are tax free in Haryana while taxable @ 4% in Punjab and Delhi as per EC approved rate. However, in Haryana this exemption is available to agricultural pump sets alone. The relevant part of the proposal is extracted below:- ''As seen from the table above, mono block and other pump sets are tax free in Haryana while taxable @ 4% in Punjab and Delhi as per EC approved rate. However, in Haryana this exemption is available to agricultural pump sets alone. Thus while agricultural pump sets are exempt in Haryana, other pump sets are taxable @ 12.5% while these are taxable @ 4% in Punjab and Delhi. It is therefore, proposed that rate of tax on non-agricultural centrifugal, mono block and submersible pumps and parts thereof may be reduced to 4%. As pump sets for industrial use can be purchased on payment of tax @ 4% and those for agriculture use are exempt from tax, the reduction in rate of tax will affect small segment of market only i.e. like those used in homes etc. and financial implications of the proposal will not be very significant. It may be further added that it would be difficult to enforce a rate of tax on a commodity based upon user principle. There is no mechanism to check whether a pump is being sold for agricultural purposes or nonagricultural purposes. So it appears advisable either to tax all types of pump sets at a uniform rate of 4% or if the Government does not wish to tax pump sets for agricultural purposes at all, then to exempt pump sets of 5 HP and above from tax and tax pump sets of lower capacity which are not generally used for agricultural purposes @ 4%.'' 22. A perusal of the aforesaid note shows that it noticed that agricultural pump sets were exempted from payment of tax in Haryana whereas other pump sets were taxed @12.5%. On the other hand, tax on such pumps in the neighbouring State was 4%. It was in the light of these facts that the amendment was carried out while adding Entry 71-A in Schedule 'C' taxing pump sets below 5 HP uniformly. It was for the reason that in agriculture normally the pump sets above 5 HP capacity are used. 23. For the reasons mentioned above, in our opinion, submersible pump sets used for agricultural purposes fall in Entry 1(D)(9) of Schedule 'B' upto June 30, 2006, hence tax free. It was for the reason that in agriculture normally the pump sets above 5 HP capacity are used. 23. For the reasons mentioned above, in our opinion, submersible pump sets used for agricultural purposes fall in Entry 1(D)(9) of Schedule 'B' upto June 30, 2006, hence tax free. From 1.7.2006 onwards pump sets below 5 HP capacity will fall in Entry 71-A in Schedule 'C', hence will be taxable irrespective of its end use. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 24. Before parting with the judgment, this Court would like to observe that the Secretary of the Department concerned should have limited his opinion only on the issue it was sought and should not have travelled beyond that unless the issue is specifically raised at the time of hearing by the parties and on which clarification was sought. 25. The appeals are disposed of.