ORDER : ASHOK MENON, J. 1. The revision petitioner is before us challenging the impugned order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 25.06.2008 at Annexure C granting exemption to the assessee for their product 'Ecohume', which they claimed to be an organic substance coming under Entry 17 of III Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'). 2. Following are the questions of law raised in this case: (A) Has not the Tribunal grievously erred in holding that the product 'ecohume' of the assessee is an organic manure coming under Entry 17 of the schedule I of the KGST Act? (B) Is not the reliance placed by the Tribunal on Annexures-D to F without reference to the Entries under the KGST Act as also the facts and circumstances of the case, perverse? (C) Ought not the Tribunal have held that the product 'Ecohume' of the assessee should be classified under Entry 47 of Schedule I to the KGST Act? 3. Exemption was claimed by the assessee for the assessment year 2003-04, on the sales turnover of 'Ecohume', which the assessee contended to be a product which is a non-taxable item being an organic substance coming under Entry 17 of the III Schedule of the Act. The contention did not find favour with the Assessing Authority; on verification of the stock receipt details, sales statement, as also F-Forms produced, giving the nomenclature of bio pesticides, all documents prepared by the assessee itself. It was held that the said product comes under Entry 47 of the First Schedule taxable at 4%. The First Appellate Authority directed the Assessing Authority to verify the claim for exemption of the sale of 'Ecohume' on the basis of the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Bangalore. The assessee filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and vide the impugned order dated 25.06.2008 in T.A.No.156/2007, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded with respect to the credit notes, to the Assessing Authority. The Tribunal relied upon the certificates produced by the assessee at Annexures D and E as well as the order of the CESTAT and remanded the matter for the limited purpose to ascertain whether the turnover is in respect of sale of 'Ecohume' and categorically directed the Assessing Authority to grant exemption for the sale of 'Ecohume'. The Tribunal relied upon the certificates produced by the assessee at Annexures D and E as well as the order of the CESTAT and remanded the matter for the limited purpose to ascertain whether the turnover is in respect of sale of 'Ecohume' and categorically directed the Assessing Authority to grant exemption for the sale of 'Ecohume'. This finding of the Tribunal has been challenged before us in this Revision. 4. The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue argues that the Tribunal went wrong in finding that the product is an organic manure, because even according to the assessee the product is a 'bio pesticide' and therefore, exemption under Entry 17 of Third Schedule of the Act could not have been granted, and that the product would come under entry 47 of First Schedule. Entry 17 reads as thus: "17. Cow dung, wood ash, poultry manure, green manure, compost, town compost, fish manure and organic manure, (including neem cake and crushed neem fruit) other than those specifically mentioned in the first schedule. Explanation:- The term 'Organic Manure' referred to in this Entry shall mean only the manure produced or derived naturally from plants or animals or form both." Entry 47 of Schedule I reads as thus:- "47. Copper sulphate, pesticides, fungicides, insecticides, weedicides and plant protection chemicals other than those specifically mentioned elsewhere in the schedule." 5. The argument of the learned Senior Government Pleader is that the Tribunal failed to note the Explanation to Entry 17 and apply its mind, and has merely relied on the certificates produced by the assessee and the order of the CESTAT. The learned Senior Government Pleader also relies on the sales promotion brochure printed and published by the assessee, which describes the product 'Ecohume' as a plant bio-stimulant in granular form containing 1.5% humic substances derived from renewable Agri Biomass. The learned Senior Government Pleader indicates that admittedly the product contains active forms of humic and fulvic acid and in addition has phytohormones like Betaines and Cytokinins, which increases the capacity of retaining and exchanging soil nutrients, thereby helping the plants to assimilate nutrients from the soil and easily increases resistance of the plant. Had the Tribunal taken into consideration all these facts in the right perspective, it could never have held that 'Ecohume' is an organic manure. 6. Had the Tribunal taken into consideration all these facts in the right perspective, it could never have held that 'Ecohume' is an organic manure. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the assessee would, on the other hand indicate that the product is an organic manure and not a bio-fertiliser. Relying on the decision, Hindustan Ferodo Ltd v. Colector of Central Excise, Bombay (1997) 2 Supreme Court Cases 667, it was argued that onus of establishing that the product fell within a particular item of classification lies on the Revenue. It is stated that the revenue has not adduced any evidence to prove that the disputed product falls within Schedule I. We cannot agree with the learned counsel on this. Hindusthan Ferodo Ltd. was a case in which the intermediate products in the manufacture of brake linings and clutch facings, being rings punched from asbestos boards and two types of asbestos fabrics were sought to be brought under Central Excise Tariff under Entry 22F as “asbestos fibres and yarn”. The manufacturer claimed that these intermediate products are brittle and fragile and not marketable at all. The Tribunal, however, found that a manufacturer of brake linings and clutch facings, who did not have the facility to manufacture asbestos fabric could purchase such intermediate products. The Honourable Supreme Court, in the cited decision, held that the onus of establishing that the product fell under Entry 22F lay upon the Revenue. The distinction insofar as the present case is that the claim is one of exemption and the assessee themselves had projected their product as a pesticide. 7. It is for the assessee to prove that their product 'Ecohume' would come within the classification of Entry 17 of the Act and therefore, entitled to exemption. Annexure D is a certificate issued by Dr.T.G.Prasad, Professor & Head, Department of Crop Physiology, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore. Another certificate produced at Annexure E is issued by the Director, Fredrick Institute of Plant Protection and Toxicology (Fippat), Tamil Nadu, stating that 'Ecohume' is a natural extract from organic matter of vegetable origin and is recommended as a soil drenching agent for improved crop growth, as vegetable fertilizer. Another certificate produced at Annexure E is issued by the Director, Fredrick Institute of Plant Protection and Toxicology (Fippat), Tamil Nadu, stating that 'Ecohume' is a natural extract from organic matter of vegetable origin and is recommended as a soil drenching agent for improved crop growth, as vegetable fertilizer. The assessee has also relied on the order of the CESTAT in Order dated 25-10-2005, wherein the product 'Ecohume', has been classified under 31.0100 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, which reads as thus:- "31.0100 : Animal or vegetable fertilizers, whether or not mixed together or chemically treated; fertilizers produced by the mixing or chemical treatment of animal or vegetable products." 8. It has to be understood that the scope and purpose of Entry 17 in III Schedule of the Act read together with the Explanation cannot be found analogous to Entry 31.011 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. No where in Annexure F order has it been held that 'Ecohume' is an 'organic manure' so as to import the finding to the requirement of Entry 17 read with the explanation. For the purpose of Central Excise Tariff Act what was required to be proved was that it is an animal or vegetable fertilizer, whether or not mixed together or chemically treated. But the scope of Entry 17 of III Schedule, especially in view of Explanation to Entry 17 as also Entry 47 of the First Schedule would indicate that what is required for the exemption to be granted under Entry 17, is that it should be an "organic manure" and applying the rule of ejusdem generis to the articles mentioned under Entry 17, which are cow dung, wood ash, poultry manure, green manure, compost, town compost, fish manure; organic manure can only be that produced or derived naturally from animals or plants not otherwise subjected to a manufacturing or chemical process. The only probable exception is to neem cake and crushed neem fruit, which have been specifically included in the entry which otherwise would not satisfy as being produced or derived naturally from plants or animals. 'Ecohume' definitely would not come within this description. Since the entire process of production of 'Ecohume' is something different from organic manure which is used, as it is, in its natural form for the purpose of sale. The only exception is derivation of Neem. 'Ecohume' definitely would not come within this description. Since the entire process of production of 'Ecohume' is something different from organic manure which is used, as it is, in its natural form for the purpose of sale. The only exception is derivation of Neem. But the entry specifically includes Neem cake and crushed Neem fruit. The assessee would only state that their product is Organic. That does not mean it is an 'organic manure', as covered under the Third Schedule. The purpose of Entry 17 is not to include all 'organic substances' within its fold. The report of the Agricultural University also states the product 'Ecohume' is a growth promoter or a growth stimulant; which offers no aid to decide on the classification. 9. A similar question came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Nelkadir Bone Industries v. Commercial Tax Officer, 2013 (2) KLT 477 , wherein the question that arose was whether the legislature was justified in including bone meal, under the head fertilizer in Entry 57(V) of the I Schedule to the Act instead of showing the same as organic manure in Entry 17 of third schedule of the KGST Act, and whether it is arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be declared as organic manure entitled for exemption. It was held thus: “Further, the organic manure enumerated in Entry 17 of the third schedule are the crude form of manure obtained in a natural manner with less manufacturing technique, and used as such in the agricultural operation. Further, the produce of organic manure has not attained large scale production in the fertilizer industry and profit earning as that of bone meal. So in order to give priority and to promote use of organic manure enumerated in Entry 17 of third schedule in agricultural operation and to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers, and attract more persons to manufacture organic manure, the legislature might have thought of giving exemption to organic manure enumerated in Entry 17 of third schedule. Neem cake and crushed neem fruit also has not acquired that much commercial importance as that of bone mean in the commercial field. So including neem cake and crushed neem fruit, which may be obtained by making some manufacture operation, it cannot be said that it is discriminatory or unreasonable classification as contended by the counsel for the appellants. Neem cake and crushed neem fruit also has not acquired that much commercial importance as that of bone mean in the commercial field. So including neem cake and crushed neem fruit, which may be obtained by making some manufacture operation, it cannot be said that it is discriminatory or unreasonable classification as contended by the counsel for the appellants. So considering the background discussed above, it cannot be said that including bone mean at par with chemical fertilizers and included in Entry 57(V) of first schedule and not treating it as organic manure as contemplated in Entry 17 of third schedule of the Act, cannot be said to be either unreasonable, arbitrary or unjust classification, or discriminatory so as to make the discretion unconstitutionalunderArt.14 of the Constitution of India.” Bone meal was, as found to be a mixture of crushed and coarsely ground bones through a mechanical process and is not produced or derived naturally from animals or plants. A reading of Entry 17 of III Schedule shows that various items, including organic manure other than those specifically mentioned in the I Schedule are included therein. For a particular manure to qualify as an organic manure, the manure shall be produced or derived naturally from plants or animals or from both. The production or derivation of manure from plants or animals or from both has to be by means of a natural process. There cannot be an intervention of any mechanical or other unnatural aka chemical process in the production of a manure to qualify it to be an organic manure for the purpose of Entry 17 of the III Schedule unless specifically included as in the case of Neem cake or crushed neem fruit. 'Ecohume' is not taken or packed as it is obtained from plants or animals by natural process, and that is explicit from the brochure describing the process by which it is produced by the company itself. Reliance placed by the Tribunal on the order of the CESTAT and the certificates issued by the University of Agricultural Sciences and the Fredrick Institute of Plant Protection and Toxicology, produced herein as Annexures D to F, was without application of mind and without going through the details of Entry 17 and the Explanation thereto. Reliance placed by the Tribunal on the order of the CESTAT and the certificates issued by the University of Agricultural Sciences and the Fredrick Institute of Plant Protection and Toxicology, produced herein as Annexures D to F, was without application of mind and without going through the details of Entry 17 and the Explanation thereto. The finding of the CESTAT was based on the classification in Entry 31.0100 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, as referred to earlier; which is not analogous to Entry 17 read with its Explanation as seen from the Third Schedule to the Act. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the impugned finding of the Tribunal is not sustainable, and requires to be reversed as being perverse on facts for having relied on irrelevant factors and not having taken into account the relevant considerations. Resultantly, the Revision is allowed, answering the questions of law in favour of the Revenue and the impugned Order of the Tribunal dated 25.06.2008 is set aside.