JUDGMENT : Alok Mathur, J. Heard Mr. Sanjay Sareen, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Revisionist, Mr. Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The controversy involved in this Revision is with regard to the classification of the "Aluminum Foil" as to whether the same should be taxed at the rate of 12.5% is a unclassified goods or thereafter it should be liable for taxation at the rate of Rs. 4% being Entry 48 of Part A of Schedule-II of U.P. VAT Act, 2008. 3. The facts leading to the present revision are that the respondents had moved an application under Section 59 of the VAT Act, 2009 before the Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow for determination of the question regarding the rate of tax on Aluminium Foil. The Commissioner in exercise of power under Section 59 of the VAT Act considered the provisions of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 in Entry 48 of Part A of Schedule-II of U.P. VAT Act, 2008, which is quoted below:- 48. Ferrous and non-ferrous metals & alloys, non-metals, such as aluminium, copper, zinc & extrusions of those including Rods, tubes, angles, channels and sections of all size and measurement and rolled products (including sheets, plates and circles of all size and measurement); Wire and Wire drawings (vide Noti. No. KA. NI-2-1021/XI-9(1)/08....dated 09-04-08 effective from 09-04-08). 4. He also took into consideration Schedule II (C) Entry 185 which is quoted as under:- 185. Aseptic packing aluminium foil of thickness less than 0.2. mm and backed by paper and LDPE. 5. In paragraph 5 of the said order he has stated that for being included in Part C and being classified as aseptic packing aluminium foil. There are two important conditions to be fulfilled which are first "Aluminium Foil should be of a thickness less than 0.2 mm and secondly that aluminium foil should also have paper LDPE (Low Density Poly Ethylene). 6. He has concluded that the product of Aluminium Foil which is under consideration does not have any paper or LDPE and therefore cannot be included in Entry 185 of Part C of Schedule-II of the U.P. Vat Act, 2008 and has further concluded that the said product also does not fall in Entry 48 of Part A of Schedule-II of U.P. VAT Act which is interesting to good. 7. 7. It has been vehemently urged by learned counsel for respondent that the learned Commissioner has not given any reason as to why the said product does not fall in Entry 48 of Part A of Schedule-II of U.P. VAT Act, 2008. 8. The Commissioner concluded that the said product does not fall into Part A or Part C of Schedule II of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008. The counsel for the respondents being aggrieved by the said decision approached the Commercial Tax Tribunal by way of an Appeal under Section 57 of the VAT Act, 2008. 9. The Full Bench of the Commercial Tax Tribunal by an order dated 08.July2011, which has been impugned before us in this revision while allowing the appeal has held that " the sum and substance of the matter is that the "Aluminium Foil" is the product of "Aluminium' obtained through the process of pressing the aluminium sheets for the required thickness. A plain reading of Entry No. 48 (Part-A, Schedule-II of U.P. VAT Act) makes it evident that the Legislature's intent is to cover all the products of ferrous and non-ferrous metals and alloys such an aluminium. The sample shown at the time of hearing of the appeal also indicates that it is a metal beaten or rolled out into thin sheets and the same can be used for packing the food even. The department also admits a non-ferrous metal. Residuary entry can not be restored to, in the present case as the specific Entry No. 48 and 185 covers the matter squarely." 10. The counsel for the revisionist has challenged the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated 08 July 2011 in the instant revision on the ground that the Aluminium foil presented by the respondent is not an industrial input, but it is a finished goods, and the goods under consideration was a different goods which is neither falls within the category of Entry 48 of Part A of Schedule-II of U.P. VAT Act, 2008 and therefore the said product is likely to be held as commercial goods which is in the category of unclassified goods and liable to be taxed at the rate of 12.5%. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The question arises considering of this Court in the present revision is as to whether Aluminium Foil is covered by Entry 48 of Part A of Schedule-II of U.P. VAT Act, 2008. Under Entry 48 of Part A of Schedule-II of U.P. VAT Act, 2008, it should be taxed at the rate of 4% or it should be treated as unclassified goods and tax at the rate of 12.5. 13. The Aluminium Foil is prepared from the ingots of aluminium which are heated to make them malleable, rolled, passing backwards and forwards through large rollers as the slab gets thinner and thinner, and longer and longer. This metal strips is hot rolled to a thickness of 2 to 4 mm (2000 to 4000 mircons) and then coiled, before being cold rolled to metal thickness of between 6 and 400 microns. The foil is then annealed by a thermal process to make it paliable: great care is taken to ensure the correct balance between the flexibility and strength for different applications. 14. The Aluminium foil which is a thin aluminium sheet, is obtained by rolling the sheets into desired thickness, flexibility and strength, but the same remains in the form of sheet kept either in sheet or in rolled form. 15. Entry 48 of Part A of Schedule-II of U.P. VAT Act, 2008 reads as follows:- "Ferrips and non-ferrous metals and alloys, non-metals, such a aluminium, copper, zinc and extrusions of those including rods, tubes, angles, channels and sections of all size and measurement and rolled products (including sheets, plates and circles of all size and measurement) wires and wire drawing." 16. From the perusal of the aforesaid entry it is clear that the Aluminium Foil has been mentioned in Entry 48 which includes of non-ferrous metals of all sizes and measurement and rolled products (including sheets, plates and circles of all size and measurement) wires and wire drawing. 17. The question which has been raised in the present revision can be squarely answered by a bare reading the entry 48 in the manner as it has been stated from which it is clear that aluminium foil would be included in the wrap sheets, plates and rolled products. 18. 17. The question which has been raised in the present revision can be squarely answered by a bare reading the entry 48 in the manner as it has been stated from which it is clear that aluminium foil would be included in the wrap sheets, plates and rolled products. 18. The counsel for the respondents has also submitted that "the golden rule is that the words of a statutes must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences. It is said that the words themselves best declared the intention of the law-giver". 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mauri Yeast India Private Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2008) 5 SCC 680 , wherein in paragraph Nos. 34, 46 and 46 the Apex Court has held as under:- "34. It is now a well settled principle of law that in interpreting different entries, attempts shall be made to find out as to whether the same answers the description of the contents of the basic entry and only in the event it is not possible to do so, recourse to the residuary entry should be taken by way of last resort. 46. . It is now a well settled principle of law that when two views are possible, one which favours the assessee should be adopted. [Bihar State Electricity Board and another vs. M/s. Usha Martin Industries and another, (1997) 5 SCC 289 ]. 56. We, therefore, are of the opinion that if there is a conflict between two entries one leading to an opinion that it comes within the purview of the tariff entry and another the residuary entry, the former should be preferred." 20. In Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2001) 4 SCC 534 , Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.26 observed as under:- "26. In Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2001) 4 SCC 534 , Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.26 observed as under:- "26. Further we wish to clarify that it is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statute that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless such construction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest to the contrary. The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences. It is said that the words themselves best declare the intention of the law giver. The Courts have adhered to the principle that efforts should be made to give meaning to each and every word used by the legislature and it is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surpluses, if they can have a proper application in circumstances conceivable within the contemplation of the statute. Bearing in mind, the aforesaid principle of construction, if the expression any new member society occurring in the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 27 is construed, it conveys the only meaning that it refers to the societies to be formed hereafter and not of those societies which have already become member societies of the federal society. Therefore, the requirement of the completion of the period of three years from the date of its investing any part of its fund in the shares of such federal society would apply only to those societies which became member society of the federal society after 20th August, 2000. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity. Even if there remained any doubt in the matter of interpreting the proviso, the Ordinance that has been promulgated on 27th February, 2001, called the Maharashtra Ordinance No. X of 2001, after the first proviso to sub-section (3), a second proviso had been inserted, has removed any doubt or controversy in as much as it has been indicated therein that the first proviso will not apply to the member society which has invested any part of its fund in the share of the federal society before the commencement of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2000 dated 20th August, 2000. The aforesaid Ordinance also has been given a retrospective effect, to be effective from 23rd August, 2000. The Ordinance having been held to be valid by us as stated above, the so-called prohibition contained in the first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 27 will not apply to all those societies which have already become members of the federal society prior to 23rd August, 2000." 21. From the reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that Aluminium Foil which is the product of "Aluminium' obtained through the process of pressing the aluminium sheets for the required thickness. A plain reading of Entry No. 48 (Part-A, Schedule-II of U.P. VAT Act) makes it evident that the Legislature's intent is to cover all the products of ferrous and non-ferrous metals and alloys such as aluminium. Aluminium Foil which is also a aluminium sheet is included in Entry 48 of Part A of Schedule-II of U.P. VAT Act, 2008 22. The reasons given in the full bench of the Commercial Tax is valid and the aluminium foil has been rightly held to be covered under Entry 48 of Part A of Schedule-II of U.P. VAT Act, 2008. The question raised by the revisionist is answered accordingly. 23. In view of the above, the revision is dismissed.