JUDGMENT : 1. The facts of the leading case bearing SB STR No.11/2012 are taken into consideration and since it is claimed by the counsel that the issues being identical and raising common controversy for the sake of convenience, therefore are being decided after hearing counsel for the parties by this common order, the judgment would be applicable to all others. It relates to assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 respectively. 2. The petitions were admitted on the following substantial questions of law which reads as under:- Petitions filed by Assessee; SB STR Nos. 7/2012, 8/2012, 9/2012, 11/2012, 12/2012, 13/2012, 14/2012, 15/2012, 16/2012 & 64/2014 :- “1. Whether the Tax Board erred in law in failing to appreciate the judgment of the Tax Board’s judgment in the case of “Jyoti Laboratories (reported as (2009) 23 Tax Update 76) which relied on Hon’ble Karnataka High Court judgment in the case of Ashok Agencies Vs. State of Karnataka (reported as (2008) 16 STT 435 wherein it was held a specific entry (such as Entry 21 and 29 of the Schedule IV of RVAT Act) which does not qualify the said entries and limit their application only to be used in agriculture and horticultural purposes, a qualification cannot be imported by the respondents? 2. Whether the Tax Board erred in law in treating Entry 21 of Schedule IV of RVAT Act, wherein goods to qualify under the said entry were limited in terms of use or required to be used for agricultural/horticulture use. The Tax Board classified “Harpic” and “Lizol” under Schedule IV of RVAT Act on this erroneous premise? 3. Whether the Tax Board has committed an error apparent on the face of record in classifying “Harpic” in list Schedule V, whereas the same should have been classified under entry No.21, 29 & 43 of Schedule IV of the RVAT Act and Rules framed thereunder? 4. Whether the Tax Board has committed an error in not appreciating that the scope of Entry 21 as well as Entry 29 to Schedule IV of the RVAT Act was not limited to the goods used for agricultural/horticultural purposes? 5. Whether the Tax Board has committed an error of law in not appreciating that “Harpic” being disinfectant, could not be classified under Schedule V of the RVAT Act? Petitions filed by Revenue; SB STR Nos. 111/2012, 117/2012, 118/2012, 121/2012, 122/2012, 123/2012, 124/2012 & 125/2012:- “1. 5. Whether the Tax Board has committed an error of law in not appreciating that “Harpic” being disinfectant, could not be classified under Schedule V of the RVAT Act? Petitions filed by Revenue; SB STR Nos. 111/2012, 117/2012, 118/2012, 121/2012, 122/2012, 123/2012, 124/2012 & 125/2012:- “1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Rajasthan Tax Board was justified in deleting the penalty under section 61 of the Act despite the fact that the tax at the lesser rate was deposited contrary to the applicable rate of tax on the goods sold by the assessee?” “2.WHETHER in the facts and circumstances of the case of Rajasthan Tax Board was justified in law in holding that the product of respondent ‘Dettol’ falls within the ambit of drug and medicine despite of the fact that the assessing authority as well as appellate authority have categorically held same to be falling in residuary entry liable to be taxed at higher rate? 3. WHETHER in the facts and circumstances of the case the Rajasthan Tax Board was justified in deleting the penalty u/Sec.61 of the Act solely on the ground that the entries were recorded in the books of accounts though the same were incorrect and deliberately the goods were shown to be taxable on a lesser rate than applicable rate of tax? 3. The brief facts noticed are that a survey came to be conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 03.05.2007 by the Anti Evasion Wing of the revenue wherein, it was noticed that the assessee is manufacturing/producing Anti-mosquitoes devices and “repellents”, “Dettol Soap”, “Brasso”, “Harpic Toilet Cleaner”, “Lizol Floor Cleaner”, “Manson Polish”, “Robin Blue”, “Ret Kill”, “Teenapole”, Drugs & Medicines etc. and during the course of survey and further investigation material was collected on the basis whereof the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee is selling Electrically Operated Anti-mosquito devices & repellents, Electrically Operated Anti-Mosquito Mat, Anti-Mosquito Coil, Rat Kill, “Harpic”, “Lizol”, “Dettol” Antiseptic on which VAT @ 4% was being collected and paid and the Assessing Officer was prima-facie of the opinion that the claim of the assessee that it falls in Schedule-IV of the RVAT Act is not correct rather it falls in the residuary Schedule on which rate prescribed is 12.5% which was required to be paid and not 4% as claimed by the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the claim of the assessee and a show cause notice was given on 17.05.2007 as to why “Harpic” and “Lizol” be not classified under the residuary entry (Sr. No.1 of Schedule V to the RVAT Act) and differential tax @ 8.5% be not charged on the product as the residuary entry provides tax @ 12.5% whereas the tax was paid @ 4% only. An explanation was offered but the Assessing Officer did not accept the claim of the assessee and stated that the assessee has not been able to prove and justify that the above items would fall under Entry 21 or Entry 29 of Schedule IV of the RVAT Act. The assessee also relied on certain authorities but the Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee and charged a differential rate as well as levied interest and also levied penalty u/Sec.61 of the Act. 4. The matter was assailed before the Dy. Commissioner (A) before whom, it was reiterated that the above items fall within Entry 21 or/and Entry 29 of Schedule IV of the RVAT Act however, the Dy. Commissioner (A) was not satisfied and upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. However, the Dy. Commissioner (A) was satisfied that it is a case of classification and thus, deleted the penalty u/Sec.61 of the Act, as two views are possible. 5. Further appeal was preferred by both assessee as well as the revenue, while the assessee assailed the matter on merits on differential rate, however, the revenue filed an appeal on deletion of penalty u/Sec. 61 of the Act. 6. The Tax Board also did not interfere in the order of the Dy. Commissioner (A) and maintained that the said product does not fall under the category of Entry 21 or/and Entry 29 of the Schedule IV of the RVAT Act and thus, upheld the order passed by both the Authorities. However, the Tax Board was satisfied that it is not a case of penalty and accordingly upheld the order of the Dy. Commissioner (A). 7. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that the two products namely; “Harpic” & “Lizol” are classifiable under Entry 21 or Entry 29 of Schedule IV of the RVAT Act. However, the Tax Board was satisfied that it is not a case of penalty and accordingly upheld the order of the Dy. Commissioner (A). 7. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that the two products namely; “Harpic” & “Lizol” are classifiable under Entry 21 or Entry 29 of Schedule IV of the RVAT Act. and the same being used as Insecticides or Pesticides and the entry being specific and clear, the Assessing Officer as well as the Appellate Authorities have gone wrong in holding that they fall under the residuary entry namely; Schedule (V) and the burden was on the revenue to hold and to say that it falls under residuary entry and once Schedule (V) itself specifically states that the cases which are not covered by specific entry then it would fall under Schedule (V) (residuary) and since the products as claimed squarely fall within Entry 21/29 of the Act, it cannot be brought under the residuary entry Schedule (V) of the Act. Counsel further contended that the position was quite clear at least up to 14.07.2014 and it is only on or from 14.07.2014 that specific entry 18 (iii) was added in Schedule (V) with higher rate of 12.5/14% as the case may be and thus contended that the position being prior to 14.07.2014 the question of taxing @ 12.5% for the present assessment years is wholly unjustified. Counsel further contended that licenses have been obtained from Central Insecticide Board Committee (Government of India) for Mortein (treating them as insecticide under the Insecticide Act) and for “Harpic”, “Lizol” from the Drug Controller, Government of India (treating them as a disinfectant) and “Dettol”, treating it as a Drug/medicine from the Drug Controller, Government of India. Counsel contended that they have well established that under common/Commercial parlance (principle laid down by the Apex Court) these products would certainly fall within entry 21 or/29 of the Act as the case may be. Counsel further contended that the assessee filed reports certifying the insecticide nature of Mortein before the lower authorities which has not been considered in right perspective. Counsel further contended that the assessee filed reports certifying the insecticide nature of Mortein before the lower authorities which has not been considered in right perspective. Counsel contended that the Test reports placed on record shows that the insecticidal effect of Mortein stands evidenced by various test reports given by the Government approved research and testing centers and most of the reports are of the Government bodies/ Agencies which ought to have given due credence and could not have been ignored by the Authorities below. 8. Counsel also contended that HSN classifiable which also laid down certain principles and specifically HSN Code 3808 provides that these products are in the nature of Insecticides/Pesticides. 9. Counsel also contended that the Central Excise Authorities have also considered these products as Insecticides/Pesticides. Counsel also drew attention of the Court to the dictionary meaning of “Pest/Pesticide” and other products as given in the Chamber’s Twentieth Century Dictionary as well as “Glossary/Pesticides” Users. Counsel contended that the active ingredient of “Harpic” is Hydrochloric Acid, which is a well known Benzalkonium Chloride Solution I.P., and other ingredients and these products are used for disinfecting the surface on which it is applied. “Harpic” is effective in killing various Micro- Organisms (germs/bacteria) and the function of “Harpic” is disinfectant and it has additional function of completely removing tough stains from the surface on which it is applied. 10. Insofar as the “Lizol” is concerned, it is effective in killing Micro-organisms which are generally found on hard surfaces like floors that cause urinary track infections, respiratory system infections, dermatitis, soft tissue infections, bone and joint infections, etc. and the test reports given by the Government Laboratories classifies “Harpic” and “Lizol” as Insecticides and thus contended that the finding reached by the Authorities below is contrary to the material on record. Insofar as “Dettol” is concerned, counsel supported the view expressed by the Tax Board as it is certainly in the nature of drug/medicine. 11. Counsel also contended that the penalty u/Sec.61 was rightly deleted by the Tax Board as admittedly it is a case of classification and in a case of classification, question of imposition of penalty does not arise. All the sales declared have been found to be duly recorded in the books of account and even during the course of survey, no material was gathered except to say that the products fall under the residuary entry. 12. All the sales declared have been found to be duly recorded in the books of account and even during the course of survey, no material was gathered except to say that the products fall under the residuary entry. 12. Counsel also relied upon the case of assessee itself which was decided by High Court at Gauhati where almost identical entry was there in the Assam VAT Act where it was held that “Harpic” and “Lizol” and other products would be liable to tax under Entry 19 of part A of the Second Schedule to Assam VAT Act and so also “Dettol” would be liable to tax under Entry 21 of the Fourth Schedule to the Assam VAT Act. Counsel also contended that though Kerala High Court in the case of assessee had taken a different view in OT No.6/2006 but the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s) 6096/2007 vide judgment dt.29.04.2008 while setting aside the orders of the authorities below remanded/remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. Counsel relied upon judgments in the case of Voltas Limited Vs. State of Gujrat (2015) 7 SCC 527 , Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Calcutta (2004) 12 SCC 42 , Ponds India Limited (Merged with H.L. Limited) Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow (2008) 8 SCC 369 , Godrej Hicare Limited (Now Known As Godrej Sara Lee Ltd.) Vs. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal), Hyderabad and Others (2007) 6 VST 636 (AP), M/s. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner & Others decided on 17.12.2008, Bombay Chemical Pv.t Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay : 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 646, Ambey Laboratories Vs. Collector 2001 (131) ELT A86 (SC), M/s. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd, Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1995 SC 1469 , Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Assam and Ors decided on 17.09.2012, M/s. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd., Vs. The State of Karnataka decided on 20.12.2005, State of Orissa Vs. Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd: (1995) 97 STC 279 (Ori), M/s. Reckitt Piramal Ltd., Vijayawada Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) 38 APSTJ 54, India and Anr. Vs. Vicco Laboratories (2007) 13 SCC 270 . 13. Per-contra, ld. The State of Karnataka decided on 20.12.2005, State of Orissa Vs. Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd: (1995) 97 STC 279 (Ori), M/s. Reckitt Piramal Ltd., Vijayawada Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) 38 APSTJ 54, India and Anr. Vs. Vicco Laboratories (2007) 13 SCC 270 . 13. Per-contra, ld. counsel for the revenue contended that the intention of the legislature was very much clear and by way of clarificatory amendment in 2014, all these products were taken in Schedule (V) Entry 18(iii). Counsel contended that if the Entry 21 & 29 of the Schedule are perused then they refer to the products for agricultural use and the Government intended to grant benefits to such class of people/farmers/agriculturist with a lower rate of 4%, if such products are being used in farming or for agricultural operations. Counsel contended that whatever the test reports may be there but it does not prove them to be categorized in Entry 21 or 29 of the Act as the case may be and these being basically Toilet Cleaners for upper class of people, all the three authorities in unison have held in favour of the revenue. Counsel also contended that even under common parlance test, these products are merely called of general household items as Toilet Cleaners and floor cleaners and not as Insecticide/Pesticides. Counsel also contended that in the case of the assessee itself, the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in M/s. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner & Ors in OT Appeal No.6 of 2006 vide judgment and order dt. 17.12.2008 considered the question regarding these very products and where also the claim of the revenue was that these are the products to be chargeable @ 12.5% and the Kerala High Court after elaborate consideration has held in favour of the revenue. Counsel contended that elaborate reasonings have been given by all the three authorities in unison and after considering various authorities relied upon by the counsel for the parties and even as per the common parlance test/principle enunciated by the Apex Court, these products namely; “Harpic” & “Lizol” are Toilet Cleaner/Floor Cleaner and not in the nature of Insecticide/Pesticides. Counsel also contended that the Tax Board took into consideration the definition given of “Harpic” from Wikipedia. Counsel also contended that the Tax Board took into consideration the definition given of “Harpic” from Wikipedia. As per it “Harpic” is the brand name of a toilet bowl cleaner launched in England and now marketed by assessee holding it to be in the nature of Toilet Cleaner products etc. and nothing more. 14. Counsel for the revenue in support of the petitions preferred by Revenue is concerned contended that insofar as the “Dettol” is concerned, it cannot be said to be Drug/Medicine as it has also been used merely to prevent minor cuts in some part of the bodies and does not improve any deficiency/disease in the body so as to classify in the category of Drug/Medicines and Tax Board was unjustified in deciding in favour of the assessee. 15. Counsel also contended that the assessee knowing it fully well that the product falls in residuary category still took it as falling under Entry 21/29 of the Act, clearly prove the intention of the assessee that it wanted to evade tax and it is only during the course of survey, the revenue was able to bring such facts on record otherwise, the assessee was paying same rate of tax @ 4% whereas it ought to have paid tax @ 12.5% or 14%. Counsel also contended that the intention of the legislature being very clear and the assessee showing a lower rate, having amended later on 14.07.2014 clearly proves that the intention of the legislature was always to treat such products under residuary Entry. Thus, the penalty was inevitable and all the three authorities have found in unison that these products fall in Schedule (V). 16. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record including judgments. 17. It would be appropriate to quote Entry 21 & 29 of the Act which reads as under:- “21. Bio-fertilizers and Micronutrients also plant growth promoters and regulators, herbicides, rodenticide, insecticide, weedicide etc. 29. Chemical fertilizers and pesticides.” 18. The entry as they stand does mention Insecticide or Pesticide as part of the Entry and it may be that these are categorized for the benefits to farmer/agriculturist who may use such products in farming to prevent Insects or germs which may damage the crop but still Insecticide/Pesticides is certainly forming part of the Entry. 19. The entry as they stand does mention Insecticide or Pesticide as part of the Entry and it may be that these are categorized for the benefits to farmer/agriculturist who may use such products in farming to prevent Insects or germs which may damage the crop but still Insecticide/Pesticides is certainly forming part of the Entry. 19. Once specific entry is available then the burden shifts on the revenue to say and hold that it would fall in Schedule (V). Even Schedule (V) categorically observes that :- “Those goods which are not covered in any other Schedule or not covered by any notification issued u/Sec.4 of the Act.” It should mean that if it is not covered in any Entry then only it may be carried to Schedule (V). 20. The assessee in the aforesaid cases has been able to procure and place reports of Government owned Laboratories which do specify that these products are falling in the category of Insecticide/Pesticides. In my view, such test reports ought not to have been discarded by the lower authorities without referring even rather should have been adverted either to distinguish or reject the same. It would be appropriate to refer the judgment in the case of Ponds India Limited (supra) where insofar as test/ Laboratory report is concerned, it has been held as under:- “72. Furthermore, an expert in the field has also given his opinion in favour of the appellant. This Court in Quinn India Vs. CCE classified a product relying, inter alia, on the report of the clerical (sic chemical) examiner as under: “7. ….The Tribunal has completely ignored the report of the Chemical Examiner dated 06- 10-1992 coupled with the classification issued by the Department regarding use of wetting agents in the textile industries falling under Sub-Heading 3402.90. Test reports of the Chemical Examiner and Chief Chemist of the Revenue unless demonstrated to be erroneous, cannot be lightly brushed aside. The Revenue has not made any attempt to discredit or to rebut the genuineness and correctness of the reports of the Government, Chemical Examiner and Chief Chemist. Test reports of the Chemical Examiner and Chief Chemist of the Revenue unless demonstrated to be erroneous, cannot be lightly brushed aside. The Revenue has not made any attempt to discredit or to rebut the genuineness and correctness of the reports of the Government, Chemical Examiner and Chief Chemist. Thus, the reports are to be accepted along with other documentary evidence in the form of classification issued by the Department regarding use of wetting agents in the textile industries to hold that the product Penetrator 4893 possessed surface active properties and, therefore, is covered by Exemption Notification No.101/66 dated 17-6-1966 as amended from time to time” 73. In this case also, the report of the chemical examiner is in favour of the assessee. Furthermore, in a case of this nature, where the Revenue itself has been holding the assessee to be a producer of a pharmaceutical product, the burden would be on the Revenue to establish that the goods cease to fall under a given entry. For the said purpose, no material was placed by the Revenue which was imperative.” 21. The Apex Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and Others (2006) 3 SCC 1 has also held that if an entry has been interpreted consistently in a particular manner for several assessment years ordinarily it would not be permissible for the revenue to depart therefrom unless there is a material change. 22. The arguments of the counsel for the revenue that the intention of the legislature was quite clear and it was clarificatory in nature in my view, is not based on any material. If the intention of the legislature was quite clear then it had to be specified in the Notification which was brought in September, 2014, unless specifically stated it has to be prospective. 23. It would also be appropriate to quote the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Bombay Chemical Pvt Ltd. (supra) where disinfectant fluids was in issue, held to be entitled to exemption in respect of item 18 added to list of extract items under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 where the Entry 18 was added to it which reads as under:- “18. Insecticides, Pesticides, Weedicides and Fungicides.” The Apex Court in the aforesaid case defined after taking note of the dictionary meaning of “disinfectant” and “Pesticides” and it would be appropriate to quote relevant paras of the said judgment which reads ad-infra:- “5. ‘Disinfectant’ is defined in Webster Comprehensive Dictionary “as a substance used to disinfect or to destroy the germs of infectious and contagious diseases”. In the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, ‘disinfectant’ is defined as “a commercially produced chemical liquid that destroys germs”. In Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol.4, it is explained to mean, “any substance, such as creosote or alcohol, applied to inanimate objects to kill microorganisms. Disinfectants and antiseptics are alike in that both are germicidal, but antiseptics are applied primarily to living tissue. The ideal disinfectant would rapidly destroy bacteria, fungi, viruses and protozoans, would not be corrosive to surgical instruments, and would not destroy or discolour materials on which it is used”. It thus cannot be disputed that a disinfectant is also a killing agent. Even the Tribunal found that the goods produced by the appellant which contained high boiling tar acid kill the bacteria in the gutters and the bathrooms. In the Report of the Deputy Chief Chemist it was mentioned that all above products numbering 14 were formulations containing high boiling tar acid as the principal active ingredient. It then noticed the definition of pesticide and disinfectant and observed that, “it appears from the above definition that disinfectants are used for killing or inactivating micro-organisms, in some literature for oils (containing high boiling tar acid) are mentioned in pesticide manual”. But he opined that is was not clear whether the formulations containing tar acids, as in the case of the goods produced by the appellant which were used as disinfectants, will be covered broadly by term ‘pesticides’. 6. ‘Pesticide’ has been defined in Butterworths Medical Dictionary, 2nd Edn., as “a comprehensive word to include substances that will kill any form of pests, e.g., insects, rodents and bacteria”. The term ‘pesticide’ includes a large variety of compounds of diverse chemical nature and biological activity grouped together usually on the basis of what kind of pests they are used to destroy or eliminate. The term ‘pesticide’ includes a large variety of compounds of diverse chemical nature and biological activity grouped together usually on the basis of what kind of pests they are used to destroy or eliminate. Under the US Federal Environment Pesticide Control Act, the term ‘pesticide’ has been defined to include “(1) any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest, insect, rodent, nematode, fungus, weed, other forms of terrestrial or aquatic plants or other forms of animal life, e.g., viruses, bacteria, or other micro-organisms, which the administrator declares to be a pest and (2) any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant or desiccant” (Pesticides in the Indian Environment, by P.K. Gupta p.2). 7. ‘Fungicide’ inhibits growth or destroys fungi pathogenic to man or other animals or inanimate surfaces. The appellant had imported tar acid to manufacture insecticide, pesticide and fungicide. The Director General had permitted import for this purpose. In the letter written by the appellant claiming exemption, it was stated that disinfectant fluids manufactured by it were capable of being used for the purpose of destroying fungi of medical importance. 8. A disinfectant which, therefore, is used for killing many broadly be covered in the word ‘pesticide’. Disinfectants, may be of two types; one to disinfect and other to destroy the germs. The former, i.e., those products which are used as disinfectant for instance lavender etc. may not be covered in the expression ‘pesticide’. But those products which are used for killing insects by use of substances such as high boiling tar acid have the same characteristic as ‘pesticide’. 9. Item No.18 which was added in 1978 grants exemption to the categories of goods which can be classified as insecticides, pesticides, weedicides or fungicides. They have to be understood in broad sense. The reasoning of the Tribunal that if an expression is capable of a broader and a narrower meaning then it is the latter which could be preferred does not appear to be correct. Where entries are descriptive of category of goods they have certain characteristics. Therefore, when a question arises whether a particular goods is covered in any category or not, it has to be examined if it satisfies the characteristic which go to make it a goods of that category. Where entries are descriptive of category of goods they have certain characteristics. Therefore, when a question arises whether a particular goods is covered in any category or not, it has to be examined if it satisfies the characteristic which go to make it a goods of that category. And whether in trade circle it is understood as such and if it is a goods of technical nature then whether technically it falls in the one or the other category. Once it is found that a particular goods satisfies the test then the issue which arises for consideration is whether it should be construed broadly or narrowly. One of the settled principles of construction of an exemption notification is that it should be construed strictly, but once a goods is found to satisfy the test by which it falls in the exemption notification then it cannot be excluded from it by resorting to applying or construing such notification narrowly. Item 18 is an exemption notification. As stated earlier, it mentions broad categories of goods which are entitled to exemption. Once a goods is found to fall even narrowly in any of these categories, there appears no justification to exclude it. The test of strict construction of exemption notification applies at the entry, that is, whether a particular goods is capable of falling in one or the other category but once it falls then the exemption notification has to be construed broadly and widely. Each of the words insecticides, pesticides, fungicides or weedicides are understood both in the technical and common parlance as having broad meaning. Therefore, if any goods or items satisfy the test of being covered in either of the expression, then it is entitled to exemption. The broad and basic characteristic for exemption under the notification is that the goods must have the property of killing germs and bacteria, insects or pests and it should be understood in the common parlance as well as being covered in one of the broad categories mentioned in the notification. Since the goods produced by the appellant are capable of killing bacteria and fungi which too, is covered in the expressions ‘pesticide’ and ‘fungicide’ there appears no reason to exclude the goods from the aforesaid notification.” This Judgment supports the claim of the assessee and in my view, squarely covers the issue in favour of the assessee. 24. Since the goods produced by the appellant are capable of killing bacteria and fungi which too, is covered in the expressions ‘pesticide’ and ‘fungicide’ there appears no reason to exclude the goods from the aforesaid notification.” This Judgment supports the claim of the assessee and in my view, squarely covers the issue in favour of the assessee. 24. The Gauhati High Court in assessee’s own case Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Assam and Ors (supra) had also an occasion to consider the similar & identical entries and it would be appropriate to quote relevant para Nos.3 & 4 of the aforesaid Judgment which reads adinfra:- “3. Entry No.19 of Part A of the Second Schedule to Assam VAT Act reads as follows:- “Chemical fertilizers, pesticides, weedicides and insecticides excluding mosquito repellents including electric or electronic mosquito repellents gadgets and insect repellents, devices and parts and accessories thereof.” The petitioner claims that the products Harpic and Lizol fall under the aforesaid Entry No.19 as these are disinfectants and covered by the expression “pesticides”. 4. Entry 21 of the Fourth Schedule of the Assam VAT Act, as existed prior to 07.08.2005 which read as, “Drugs & Medicines (On Maximum Retail Price basis)” was modified by the subsequent notification dated 08.08.2005, which now reads as follows:- “Drug and medicines including vaccines, disposable hypodermic syringes, hypodermic needles, catguts sutures, surgical dressing (On Maximum Retail Price basis). Explanation: The expression “drugs and medicines” shall not include products capable of being used as cosmetics and toilet preparations including tooth paste, tooth powder, cosmetics, toilet articles and soaps.” (emphasis added)” 25. Taking into consideration the entry existing under the RVAT Act, the characteristic and phraseology is almost identical to the Assam VAT Act, the High Court after detailed reasoning observed in para Nos.38, 39 & 41 of the judgment of the Gauhati High Court (supra) which reads ad-infra:- “38. In respect of the aforesaid products, as discussed above, the disinfectants qualities of the Harpic and Lizol and the prophylactic qualities of Dettol have not been denied by the revenue authorities. The only stand taken by the revenue authorities is that these were not dominant nature of the products. However, it cannot be denied that these disinfectant and the prophylactic qualities of the aforesaid products are not insignificant, rather because of the aforesaid disinfectant and prophylactic qualities, the aforesaid products are used. The only stand taken by the revenue authorities is that these were not dominant nature of the products. However, it cannot be denied that these disinfectant and the prophylactic qualities of the aforesaid products are not insignificant, rather because of the aforesaid disinfectant and prophylactic qualities, the aforesaid products are used. It is now well settled principle of law that when two views are possible, the one which favours assessee should be adopted. In Mauri Yeast India Private Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 5 SCC 680 . : “46. It is now a well-settled principle of law that when two views are possible, one which favours the assessee should be adopted. (See Bihar 4 : (1997) 5 SCC 289 Here, in the present case , there are two possible view: either to take the products Harpic and Lizol to be merely stain remover and cleansing agents or as disinfectants and in respect of Dettol, to treat it as a mere toilet preparation or a drug or medicine. Since there are sufficient materials to consider Harpic and Lizol as disinfectants and accordingly, as pesticides, and Dettol as medicament, following the aforesaid principle of law, it can be held that the said products are pesticides and drugs respectively. 39. In view of the aforesaid possible views taken to consider Harpic and Lizol as pesticides and Dettol as a drug, based on material as discussed above, it will not be appropriate to deny their qualification under the aforesaid Entry Nos.19 and 21 and consign them to the residuary entry. In this connection, we may recollect the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Dunlop India Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1976) 2 SCC 241 , where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as:- “35. It is good fiscal policy not to put people in doubt and quandary about their liability to duty. Ween a particular product like V.P. Latex known to trade and commerce in this country and abroad is imported, it would have been better if the article is, eo nomine, put under a proper classification to avoid controversy over the residuary clause. It is good fiscal policy not to put people in doubt and quandary about their liability to duty. Ween a particular product like V.P. Latex known to trade and commerce in this country and abroad is imported, it would have been better if the article is, eo nomine, put under a proper classification to avoid controversy over the residuary clause. AS a matter of fact in the Red Book (Import Trade Control Policy of the Ministry of Commerce) under Item 150, in Section II, which relates to “rubber, raw and gutta percha, raw”, synthetic latex including vinyl pyridine latex and copolymer of styrene butadiene latex are specifically included under the sub-head “Synthetic Rubber”. We do not see any reason why the same policy could not have been followed in the ICT book being complementary to each other. When an article has, by all standards, a reasonable claim to be classified under an enumerated item in the Tariff Schedule, it will be against the very principle of classification to deny it the parentage and consign it to an orphanage of the residuary clause. The question of competition between two rival classifications will, however, stand on a different footing. 36. It is not for the Court to determine for itself under Article 136 of the Constitution under which item a particular article falls. It is best left to the authorities entrusted with the subject. But where the very basis of the reason for including the article under a residuary head in order to charge higher duty is foreign to a proper determination of this kind, this Court will be loath to say that it will not interfere.” 41. In the light of the above discussions, we are of the view that these petitions should be allowed and the products Harpic and Lizol having been declared to be pesticides as discussed above, would be liable to tax under Entry No.19 of the Part A of the Second Schedule of the Assam VAT Act and Dettol would be liable to be assessed as an item under Entry 21 of the Fourth Schedule of the Assam VAT Act and will not fall within the excluded category under the Explanation.” 26. The Apex Court in the case of Ambey Laboratories Vs. The Apex Court in the case of Ambey Laboratories Vs. Collector (supra) was considering the case of “Liquid Phenyle” an identical product and, held in a case of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 that “Liquid Phenyle” is disinfectant. 27. The Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of (assessee) M/s. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd, Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) was also considering case under Andhra Pradesh VAT Act and vide judgment dt. 13.06.2013, of the same product being “Mortein”, “Lizol” & “Harpic” while the claim of the assessee was that it falls under Entry 20 of Schedule (iv) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax payable @ 4% but the claim of the revenue was that it is exigible to tax in Schedule (V) of the Act under rate of 12.5% and taking into consideration the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the Bombay Chemical Pvt Ltd. observed in the said judgment which reads as under:- “We may passingly mention that Section 18 of Drugs Act mandates a licence for manufacture, sale or distribution of any drug, cosmetic or medicine. The word “drug” is defined in Section 3(b) of the Drugs Act. It is inclusive definition. A plain reading of Section 3(b)(iv) thereof shows that not only medicines for internal or external use of human beings or animals but substances that affect structure or function of human beings or animals but substances that affect structure or function of human body or used for destruction of vermin or insects which cause disease in the human beings and animals are also drugs. Further all substances intended for use as components of a drugs. Further all substances intended for use as components of a drug and such devices intended for internal or external use among others, in the “mitigation or prevention of disease” would be drugs. When a manufacturer produces any disinfectant fluids, they are basically intended for prevention of disease by destroying and/or controlling bacteria and microorganisms that are unusually present. That may be one reason why even under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (the Drugs Rules) the disinfectants are placed in Schedule-K in respect of which they were exempted from the provisions of Chapter IV and the Rules made thereunder. Harpic and Lizol are the products/goods sold even in general stores and on the counters of departmental stores. That may be one reason why even under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (the Drugs Rules) the disinfectants are placed in Schedule-K in respect of which they were exempted from the provisions of Chapter IV and the Rules made thereunder. Harpic and Lizol are the products/goods sold even in general stores and on the counters of departmental stores. We therefore reject the submission of the State that Harpic and Lizol fall under entry 88 merely because they are manufactured under drug licence.” 28. Placing of reliance by the counsel for the revenue on a judgment of Kerala High Court in assesses own case (supra) is misplaced as the Apex Court reversed and remanded the matter back to Kerala High Court to re-decide and counsel for the respondent was unable to bring on record the subsequent judgment of Kerala High Court. 29. Taking into aforesaid, in my view, the claim of the assessee that the products being sold by the assessee would fall in Entry 21 or 29 of the Act as the case made be is well reasoned and justified and the authorities were unjustified in taking it under the residuary Schedule (V). The claim of the assessee is just and proper. 30. Insofar as “Dettol” is concerned, this Court in the case of M/s. Johnson and Johnson Ltd. Vs. CTO & other connected cases decided on 13.07.2017 considered the case of “Savlon” and after taking into consideration the ingredients of “Savlon” to be identical held that “Savlon” is a drug/medicine and it has medicinal value and it would be appropriate to quote para-20 of the aforesaid judgment which reads as under:- “Insofar as the issue raised by the Revenue about “Savlon” is concerned, I do agree with the finding reached by the Tax Board that it is entirely a different product and it has medicinal value for it is used when there is some cut or injury on the skin and the same is used as an antiseptic. A product which is used mainly for curing or treating ailments or diseases and contains curative ingredients, is required to be branded as a medicament.” In the above case, this Court also took note of the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Reckit Benckiser (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala [Cr. M.C. Nos. 4997 of 2010 and 541 of 2011] who vide judgment and order dt. State of Kerala [Cr. M.C. Nos. 4997 of 2010 and 541 of 2011] who vide judgment and order dt. 24.03.2011 though deciding a matter relating to Criminal Misc. Case, had extensively taken into consideration the antiseptic value of Dettol. 31. Accordingly, the claim of the assessee insofar as “Dettol” is concerned, is also well justified and reasoned and the finding given by the Tax Board is just and proper and is upheld. 32. Insofar as the penalty is concerned, in my view, there is no occasion of levy of penalty, even otherwise, it is a case of classification of entries which is being considered. Admittedly, the books of accounts has been maintained and such books have been accepted by the Assessing Officer, all the entries were entered in the Stock Register and there is no unrecorded sale noticed or found or adversely commented by the ld. A.O. even at the time of survey and merely to hold that it would fall under residuary entry as against specific entry is no reason for imposition of penalty and the Apex Court in the case of Shree Krishna Electricals Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Another (2009) 11 SCC 687 has held that the penalty in such case is not leviable and even otherwise when the assessee succeeds in these petitions, as all the products have been found to be falling in specific Entry 21 or 29 of the Act question of penalty does not arise. 33. Resultantly, the petitions filed by the assessee are allowed and the questions in the petitions of assessee are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 34. Insofar as the petitions filed by the revenue are concerned, the question raised in the petitions filed by the revenue are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and are dismissed with no order as to costs.