ORDER Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ . - Both these revision petitions arise out of an order dated 16th December 2006 passed by the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack (Tribunal) in SA Nos. 77(E.T.) and 258 (E.T.) of 2004-05, which in turn pertained to orders dated 23rd February 2004 and dated 29th December 2004 of the ACST, Sambalpur Range in Sales Tax Appeal No. AA. 10 (SA-II-ET) of 2003-2004 and in AA 14 (SAII-ET) of 2004-2005 respectively. 2. In both these revision petitions, this Court framed the following substantive questions of law on 12th April 2007: (A) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Full Bench, Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal is legally competent and correct in cannot be treated as a raw material which direct goes into the composition of finished product, i. giving finding that Coal is not a raw material for manufacturing of cement rejecting the report of a technically qualified person? (B) Whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Full Bench, Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal is correct to hold that coal e., Cement; and whether such a finding of the Tribunal is not contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector of Central Excise vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., reported in 77 STC 2821 3. The background facts are that the Petitioner is engaged in manufacturing and sale of cement. It is stated that for the purposes of its manufacturing activities, the Petitioner requires raw materials like lime stone, iron ore fine, coal, gypsum etc. For the years in question i.e. 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, the Petitioner in its return filed under the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 (OET Act) claimed set off of Entry Tax paid on purchase of coal which it claimed to be used as a raw material in manufacturing of cement in terms of Section 26(1) of the OET Act read with Rule 19 (5) of the Orissa Entry Tax Rules, 1999 (OET Rules). 4. The Sales Tax Officer (STO) completed the assessments for both the years rejecting the claim of set off. 4. The Sales Tax Officer (STO) completed the assessments for both the years rejecting the claim of set off. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (ACST), Sambalpur Range, Sambalpur rejected the Petitioner's appeals observing as under: "Examining the details of the case and going through the claims of the appellant as per the documents submitted this forum is of the opinion that though the appellant claims that the coal is a raw-material which is used for production of cement this matter is not at all convincing as the analysis of cement production submitted by the appellant clearly speaks that "Coal ash" and not the I "Coal", is the ingredient of cement. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant had purchased coal on payment of entry tax which was used in the process of manufacturing of cement but as the coal in it's original form or in any of its form as coal does not constitute the ingredient of finished products i.e. cement this forum is not convinced with the submission of the learned advocate. It is opt to note here that in the taxation law "coal" and "Coal Ash" are two different commercial commodities, hence the tax paid on coal cannot be adjusted with the coal ash which directly goes into composition of cement." 5. The Petitioner then challenged the orders passed by the ACST filing the aforementioned appeals before the Tribunal. By the impugned common order dated 16th December 2006, the Full Bench of the Tribunal upheld the conclusion arrived at by the ACST and dismissed the appeals. 6. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Siddhartha Ray, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party-Sales Tax Department. 7. In the first place, the Court would like to recapitulate what constitutes raw material or 'input' in the process of manufacture. 6. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Siddhartha Ray, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party-Sales Tax Department. 7. In the first place, the Court would like to recapitulate what constitutes raw material or 'input' in the process of manufacture. In Collector of Central Excise v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd (1990) 77 STC 282 , while answering the question whether sodium sulphate was an 'input' in the manufacture of paper for the reason that in the course of the chemical reactions, sodium sulphate is consumed and burnt up, it was observed by the Supreme Court as under: "The ingredients used in the chemical technology of manufacture of any end-product might comprise, amongst others, of those which may retain their dominant individual identity and character throughout the process and also in the end-product; those which as a result of interaction with other chemicals or ingredients, might themselves undergo chemical or qualitative changes and in such altered form find themselves in the end-product; those which, like catalytic agents, while influencing and accelerating the chemical reactions, however, may themselves remain uninfluenced and unaltered and remain independent of and outside the end-products and those, as here, which might be burnt-up or consumed in the chemical reactions. The question in the present case is whether the ingredients of the last mentioned class qualify themselves as and are eligible to be called "raw material" for the end-product. One of the valid tests, in our opinion, could be that the ingredient should be so essential for the chemical processes culminating in the emergence of the desired end-product, that having regard to its importance in and indispensability for the process, it could be said that its very consumption on burning-up is its quality and value las raw-material. In such a case, the relevant test is not its absence in the end product, but the dependence of the end product for its essential presence at the delivery and of the process. The ingredient goes into the making of the end-product in the sense that without its absence the presence of the end-product, as such, is rendered impossible. This quality should coalesce with the requirement that its utilisation is in the manufacturing process as distinct from the manufacturing apparatus." 8. The ingredient goes into the making of the end-product in the sense that without its absence the presence of the end-product, as such, is rendered impossible. This quality should coalesce with the requirement that its utilisation is in the manufacturing process as distinct from the manufacturing apparatus." 8. In the present case, it was noted by the Tribunal that the State representative did not dispute the submission on behalf of the Assessee that limestone and iron ore fines are ground in a mill to fine powder and then with the use of coal the fine powder is burnt in a kiln to get clinker. Then the clinker so obtained is mixed with gypsum and slag and ground in a mill to fine powder to get cement. It is also submitted that when coal is burnt in the kiln, coal ash thereof gets mixed with the clinker which is an intermediate product from which cement is produced. It is further submitted that the ash content of coal thus ultimately forms an ingredient of the end product. 9. The Tribunal further noted the submissions of the Department to the contrary that the coal used in the manufacturing process "plays the role of fuel and it is not used as raw material". In this context, Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party-Sales Tax Department places reliance on the decision of this Court in Bhusan Power & Steel Limited v. State of Orissa and another [2012] 56 VST 50 (Ori) where the question whether the coal used for the manufacturing of electricity could be treated as a raw material was answered in the negative. In that case, relying on the decision in Union of India v. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd [2004] 134 STC 24 (SC), the Supreme Court observed that "for the purpose of manufacture, raw material has ultimately to get a new identity by virtue of manufacturing process either of its own or in conjunction with the raw material. Therefore, the coal is not a raw material of end-product, i.e., sponge iron, billets and H.R. coil." 10. In the present case, the coal is used not merely as a fuel but when it gets burnt up in the process of preparation of clinker, it produces coal ash which gets absorbed by clinker. Clinker is a raw material goes into the composition of cement. In the present case, the coal is used not merely as a fuel but when it gets burnt up in the process of preparation of clinker, it produces coal ash which gets absorbed by clinker. Clinker is a raw material goes into the composition of cement. The report of the Senior Manager (Technical) of the Petitioner which was available with the ACST, explained the use of coal as a raw material in the manufacture of cement. It was pointed out that clinker cannot be produced without coal and the cement cannot be produced without clinker. This makes coal a vital and necessary raw material for manufacturing cement. 11. More relevant in the present context is the decision of this Court in National Aluminum Company Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bhubaneswar III Circle, Khurda (2012) 56 VST 68 (Ori) where the question was whether coal, alum, caustic soda and other consumables used as inputs for manufacturing of aluminum, aluminum ingots and sheets would enable the Petitioner in that case to avail input tax credit on such inputs. That question was answered in the affirmative in favour of the said Petitioner. It was noted that under Section 2(25) of the OVAT Act (which equally applies under the OET Act) 'input' was defined to mean "any goods purchased by a dealer in the course of his business for resale or for use in the execution of works contract, in processing or manufacturing, where such goods directly goes into the composition of finished products or packing of goods for sale, and includes consumables directly used in such processing or manufacturing." The definitions of "input tax" under Section 2(26) and "input tax credit" under Section 2 (27) of the OVAT Act were also noticed. This Court then concluded as under: "It is not disputed that huge quantity of electrical energy is required during electrolysis process to I produce aluminium which is a commercial product. Thus, the electrical energy generated in the captive power plant of the petitioner is not the final product which is sold in the market. Electrical energy which is generated with the use of coal and other materials is only an intermediate product which is used in the process of manufacturing of final product, viz., aluminium, aluminium ingots and sheets, etc." 12. Electrical energy which is generated with the use of coal and other materials is only an intermediate product which is used in the process of manufacturing of final product, viz., aluminium, aluminium ingots and sheets, etc." 12. In that process, the Court also took note of the decision of the Supreme Court in J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd v. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur and others [1965] 16 STC 563 (SC) where it was held that the expression "in the manufacture of goods" should normally encompass the entire process carried on by the dealer of converting raw materials into finished goods. It was further observed as under: "Where any particular process is so integrally connected with the ultimate production of goods but for that process, manufacture or processing of goods would be commercially inexpedient, goods required in that process would fall within the expression "in the manufacture of goods". Undisputedly, in the present case, the generation of electrical energy in the captive power plant is integrally connected with the ultimate production of finished goods. Therefore, the goods required in the process of generation of electrical energy would fall within the expression "in the process of manufacturing." 13. In Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Sales Tax and others [2008] 15 VST 228 (Orissa), this Court was considering whether furnace oil was a 'consumable' within the meaning of Section 2(25) of the OVAT Act. Answering the said question in the affirmative, it was observed as under: "The contention of the opposite parties that furnace oil used by the dealer is to produce flame and therefore it is fuel and not consumable which is directly used in processing or manufacturing of finished product is totally misconceived and not sustainable in law. On the other hand, it boils down to an irresistible conclusion that furnace oil is one of the primary and essential commodities which has a direct relation in the manufacturing process and "direct relation" means without which the manufacturing of end-product is not possible at all. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that furnace oil used by the petitioner in the process of manufacture without which production of PSF is not feasible is nothing but consumable." 14. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that furnace oil used by the petitioner in the process of manufacture without which production of PSF is not feasible is nothing but consumable." 14. Viewed in the light of the above legal position, the Court concludes that in the present case, the coal used in the process of manufacture of cement is indeed an input within the meaning of Section 2(25) of the OET Act and therefore qualifies for input tax credit as claimed by the Petitioner. 15. Question A is accordingly answered in favour of the Petitioner and against the Department by holding that the Tribunal erred in holding that the coal is not a raw material for manufacturing cement. Question B is answered by holding that the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that coal could not be treated as a raw material vis-a-vis the finished product i.e. cement. Such conclusion was contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ballarpur Industries Ltd (supra). 16. Accordingly, the impugned orders of the Tribunal, the ACST as well as the STO are accordingly set aside. The revision petitions are disposed of in the above terms. 17. LCR be returned forthwith. 18. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.