ORDER : Satyen Vaidya, J. All these three revision petitions are being decided by a common judgment as common questions of law and facts arise. 2. Revision petitioner is a registered dealer under Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short 'H.P. VAT Act') and is manufacturer of product fabric whitening “Ujala Supreme” (for short ‘product’). The Assessing Officer under H.P. VAT Act applied the rate of tax @ 13.5% on the premise that the product did not fall in any of the categories specified in Schedule-A to H.P. VAT Act and hence was liable for incidence of tax in accordance with Part-III of Schedule-A (supra) in residuary category. 3. On two occasions i.e. on 29.12.2012 and 01.02.2013, the Assessing Officer raised demands of Rs. 1,06,250/- and Rs.11,090/- respectively, from the petitioner, on account of less payment of VAT after checking the consignment of the product at Barrier. Another demand of Rs. 15,29,300/- was raised by the Assessing Officer on 31.01.2013 from the petitioner on account of less tax paid for the year 2007-2008. 4. Petitioner assailed the aforesaid assessment by way of separate appeals under Section 45 of H.P. VAT Act, before Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority (South Zone), Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-09 (for short 'Appellate Authority'). The details of the appeals before the Appellate Authority are as under :- Sr. No. Date of demand Tax liability Appeal Number 1. 29.12.2012 1,06,250/- 194/2012-2013 2. 31.01.2013 15,29,300/- 222/2012-2013 3. 01.02.2013 11,090/- 1/2013-2014 All these appeals were decided by the Appellate Authority by a common order dated 24.07.2013 against the petitioner. The assessment made by the Assessing Officer was upheld. However, the Appellate Authority absolved the petitioner from payment of penalty as assessed by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner challenged the same by filing three separate appeals No. 73/2013, 74/2013 and 75/2013 before the Himachal Pradesh Tax Tribunal, Dharamshala, camp at Shimla (for short "Tribunal") under Section 45(C) of the H.P. VAT, Act). The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the petitioner vide common order dated 17.09.2014, and therefore, the petitioner is in Revision before this Court. 6. The matter in issue between the petitioner and respondent is with respect to the rate of VAT payable on the product. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the petitioner vide common order dated 17.09.2014, and therefore, the petitioner is in Revision before this Court. 6. The matter in issue between the petitioner and respondent is with respect to the rate of VAT payable on the product. Whereas, according to the petitioner, the product is covered under Entry 54 (113) of Schedule-A, Part-II-A of H.P. VAT Act, 2005, and thus, is liable to pay tax @ 5%, the respondent denies the factum of coverage of product under aforesaid Entry and maintains it to be falling in Schedule-A, Part- III of H.P. VAT Act, under residuary category. 7. On the basis of the material on record, the following question of law has arisen in common in all the three revision petitions, for consideration of this Court in exercise of its revisional power under Section 48 of the H.P. VAT, Act:- “Whether 'Ujala Supreme' is classifiable under Entry No. No.54 (113) of Schedule-A, Part II-A of H.P. VAT Act, 2005 as ‘synthetic organic colouring matter’ ”. 8. We have heard Mr. V. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the respondent. 9. It is not in dispute between the parties that the product “Ujala Supreme” is taxable under Section 6 (1)(a) of H.P. VAT Act. The dispute is with respect to the rate of tax payable by the petitioner on the product. Respondent claims VAT @13.5%, whereas the petitioner admits VAT to be payable at the rate of 5%. As per petitioner, the product is covered as “Synthetic organic colouring matter” specified at serial No.113 of notification issued by respondent detailing “Industrial input and packing material” as per Entry 54 of Part-II of Schedule-A of H.P. VAT Act. 10. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is relevant to reproduce the extract of Entry 54 as contained in Part-II of Schedule-A of H.P. VAT Act as also Entry contained at serial No. 113 to the list of industrial input and packing material notified by respondent to categorize Entry 54 (supra). 54 Industrial Input and Packing Material as may be notified Sr. 54 Industrial Input and Packing Material as may be notified Sr. No. Heading Number Description 113 3204.00.00 Synthetic organic coloring matter, whether or not chemically defined; preparations based on synthetic organic coloring matter synthetic organic products of a kind used as fluorescent brightening agents or as luminophores, whether or not chemically defined. 11. The case of petitioner in short is that the petitioner is engaged in processing of “Acid Violet Paste” (for short ‘AVP’) by diluting it with water and selling the same in the market. The product is thus nothing but diluted AVP and is used for whitening the fabric in households. Petitioner categorically maintains that since AVP is covered under Entry 54(113) of Part II of Schedule-A of H.P. VAT Act and there being no further process being employed for manufacture of product, save and except its dilution with water, the product also is covered under the said Entry and hence chargeable to VAT @ 5%. 12. Per contra, the specific stand of the respondent is that Entry-54 (113) (supra) pertains to items covering Industrial Input. The diluted AVP, as claimed by the petitioner, is not Industrial Input, rather is a product sold in retail in different size of packing for direct use of consumer, as such, the product is covered under residuary category specified in Part-III of Schedule-A of H.P. VAT Act. This contention of the respondent has been upheld by the Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal. The matter in issue in the instant petitions, has remained in contention on earlier occasions also before different High Courts. The Appellate Authority noticed the judgments passed by the Kerala and Guwahati High Courts as under:- "12. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in its judgment in OT Rev. No. 13 of 2009 titled as State of Kerala Vs. M/s Jyothy Laboratories dated 12-4-2011 had held that "Ujala Supreme" which is admittedly used as laundry whitener for clothes, cannot be treated as AVP falling under Entry 155(8)(d) under list of Third Schedule covering industrial inputs and packing materials because "Ujala Supreme". the product made can no longer be identified with AVP in any manner and in the conversion process it has lost its property as an industrial input used for dying silk and woolen material. the product made can no longer be identified with AVP in any manner and in the conversion process it has lost its property as an industrial input used for dying silk and woolen material. Moreover in the process of conversion, there is 99% erosion in the concentration of AVP leaving only an insignificant percentage of the item in water with different properties and different use. IN other words, what is done is that an industrial raw material which is used as a dyeing agent for silk and woolen clothes at high temperature is converted into a laundry whitener. Obviously an acid base industrial raw material cannot be used as a laundry whitener which is exactly what is done by "Jyothy Laboratories". The supplier of the items to the appellant. since in the process, the original item lost its identity and a new commodity with distinct composition, identity and use emerged, the appellant's contention that the item should be treated as the original commodity for classification cannot be accepted. 13. However, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in its judgment in case No. WP(C) 5428/2010 titled as M/s Jyothy Laboratories Ltd. V/s State of Assam and Ors. dated 24.03.2011 held that the product 'Ujala Supreme" though is a highly diluted form of AVP, as has been rightly held by learned Single Judge, it retains the essential characteristics of AVP. therefore, it cannot be said to be commercially distinct and different from the user product AVP, which is covered by Entry 114 of Schedule II-C to the Act. Therefore, we find no justifiable reason to accept the submission of the Appellant sale that the product emerges out of a manufacturing process and to the place the product in the residuary category in the firth schedule to the Act." It becomes evident from the aforesaid extractions of the order passed by the Appellate Authority that while the Kerela High Court held the issue against the petitioner, Division Bench of Guwahati High Court upheld the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of said Court upholding the issue in favour of the petitioner i.e. Jyoti Laboratories ltd.. The Appellate Authority, however, placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 1506/2009 titled PEPSICO India holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Appellate Authority, however, placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 1506/2009 titled PEPSICO India holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Assessing Authority-I and Ors, decided on 24.09.2010, for the purposes of drawing distinction between the authorities of the H.P. VAT Act and the Assam VAT Act, and thus, held that the product Ujala Supreme, which was universally used as fabric/laundry whitener for clothes, could not be treated as AVP or Synthetic organic colouring material specified at Entry 54 (113) of Part-II of Schedule-A of H.P. VAT Act. 13. The Tribunal in its order impugned in the present petitions, verbatim quoted the aforesaid extraction from the order passed by the Appellate Authority and upheld the same. 14. The judgment passed by Kerala High Court, as noticed by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal has been set-aside by Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.P. Agencies Vs. State of Kerala (2015) 7 SCC 102 . On the strength of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner contends that the matter in issue has been answered in its favour and is accordingly covered by the aforesaid judgment. This contention has, however, been disputed by the respondent. 15. The facts, as noticed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforesaid judgment, are as under:- “1. The appellant, M/s M.P Agencies, is a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for brevity “the 2003 Act”) and is a wholesale distributor for “Ujala Supreme” and “Ujala Stiff and Shine”, which are manufactured by M/s Jyothy Laboratories Ltd. “Ujala Supreme” is a fabric whitener and “Ujala Stiff and Shine” is a liquid fabric stiffener. The product “Ujala Supreme” is described as fabric whitener for supreme whiteness of clothes, and “Ujala Stiff and Shine” is given the description, liquid fabric whitener for crisp and shining clothes. 2. As there was an issue relating to rate of tax applicable to the two products, the appellant filed an application for clarification before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. As there was an issue relating to rate of tax applicable to the two products, the appellant filed an application for clarification before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram. The Commissioner vide Order No. C7.34151/06.CT dated 25-10-2006 clarified the position which is in the nature of advance ruling by opining that the items “Ujala Supreme” and “Ujala Stiff and Shine” are commercially known as instant whiteners and the consumers are purchasing the manufactured goods which are subjected to certain processes and are marketed as a commercially different commodity, “instant whitener”, in the brand name “Ujala”, which is used as a “laundry whitener” at the end point. After so observing, the Commissioner referred to SRO No. 82 of 2006 wherein the Government has notified list of commodities coming under 12.5% category and laundry whiteners have been brought under this category vide Entry 27. On that basis, the Commissioner held that as there is a specific entry for the commodities, it would fall under the said entry and the taxable rate would be 12.5%. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid clarificatory order, the appellant filed an appeal being OTA No. 13 of 2006 which was disposed of on 7-6-2007. The High Court remitted the matter by holding, inter alia : “In the instant case, the Commissioner without even adverting to any one of the evidence produced by the assessee, by merely relying upon how the commodity is understood in the commercial circles, has proceeded to observe that the sale of the products by the assessee requires to be taxed at 12.5%. This view of the Commissioner is contrary to sub-section (2) of Section 94 of the Act. The orders passed by the Commissioner under Section 94 of the Act is not only binding on the assessee, but also binding on the assessees who are similarly placed. Further, it is binding on the assessing authority. In cases of this nature, it is expected of the Commissioner to deal with the subject which is before him for clarification in detail and then offer his opinion by way of an order. In the instant case, the Commissioner has not done that exercise. This action of the Commissioner, in our opinion, is arbitrary, illegal and improper. In cases of this nature, it is expected of the Commissioner to deal with the subject which is before him for clarification in detail and then offer his opinion by way of an order. In the instant case, the Commissioner has not done that exercise. This action of the Commissioner, in our opinion, is arbitrary, illegal and improper. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner requires to be set aside and the matter requires to be remitted back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision, keeping in view the observations made by us in the course of the order.” 4. After the matter was remitted, the Commissioner considered all the materials furnished by the appellant and heard the matter at length. It was contended by the appellant that the scheme of VAT is materially different from that of KGST principally with respect to classification of goods for the purpose of levy of sales tax based on Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN), rate of tax applicable to different goods, etc. and resort to common parlance/commercial parlance test could be made only in respect of those goods, which have no reference to HSN. It was further urged that once a commodity is listed in the Third Schedule along with its HSN under List A, it has to be included in that entry only. 5. The crucial question, as the Commissioner perceived, was that the determination of classification of a particular commodity would be whether the same is listed in the Third Schedule with reference to HSN or not and if so listed there would be no scope to interpret the commodity differently relying on common parlance or commercial parlance. The Commissioner took note of the fact that the appellant had purchased the product in question from Jyothy Laboratories that was charging tax @ 4%on the products. Thereafter the Commissioner took note of all the contentions of the appellant and referred to the HSN codes allotted to the commodities, clause 43 of the rules of interpretation, referred to the test reports filed by the appellant and addressed to the commodity, namely, acid violet paste (AVP), and at one point observed thus: “Admittedly the products in question are manufactured and supplied by M/s Jyothy Laboratories, an industrial unit. There is no dispute on the status of the unit as a ‘manufacturing unit’. There is no dispute on the status of the unit as a ‘manufacturing unit’. The unit for the production of the products in question purchases AVP and PVA. There is no dispute on the fact that ‘the unit is not merely repacking’ the materials purchased by them and marketing it under their brand name. Admittedly some process, as per the SSI certificate of the unit ‘a manufacturing process’, is carried out before marketing their product, which brings an obvious change in the content and character and use of the products. AVP is basically an organic dye used in textile industry. By virtue of the process undertaken in the unit on the material it undergoes a basic change both in its content and character as well as in its application and use. In the new product evolved out of the process, admittedly there is only about 0.98%of AVP. According to the opinion furnished by Institute of Chemical Technology, University of Mumbai, the new product cannot any longer be used for any purpose for which AVP could have been used. These positions make it clear that the emergence of a new character for AVP is obviously due to change in content. Thus, the content, character and use of the commodity has been changed and as far as the market is concerned this is a commodity holding distinct identity as a ‘fabric whitener’. It may be true that on account of the term ‘manufacture’ as defined in the CET Act for the purpose of levying ‘excise duty’ the activities leading to the emergence of the product may not amount to manufacture on microanalysis of the term for the purpose of levying ‘excise duty’. But the basic fact remains that the product marketed by the unit is not AVP in its original form as classified in the CET Act. AVP with the changed character has not been assigned any separate HSN for the purpose of the CET Act. Under no stretch of interpretation can it be said that for the mere reason that a product has not been assigned any separate HSN it should be treated as a commodity holding HSN by virtue of its mere presence. In this case Ujala Whitener admittedly contains only a negligible portion (about 0.98%) of AVP. As stated above, definitions and classifications in the CET Act are exclusively for the purpose of levying excise duty. In this case Ujala Whitener admittedly contains only a negligible portion (about 0.98%) of AVP. As stated above, definitions and classifications in the CET Act are exclusively for the purpose of levying excise duty. If a commodity comes outside the ambit of a classification made under the CET Act, then the interpretation that could be given under the KVAT Act would be based on the preamble and definitions under the statute.” Thereafter, the Commissioner proceeded to state thus: “The commodity covered under HSN 3204.12.94 is specifically for acid violets. In view of the above findings, ‘Ujala Whitener’ can no longer be treated as an AVP in the original form for which the HSN has been assigned and so the specific Entry 155(8) for acid violets holding HSN 3204.12.94 will not encompass the product ‘Ujala Whitener’. In the result the test to be applied is the ‘common parlance’ or ‘commercial parlance’ theory. If a consumer asks for AVP no dealer would give ‘Ujala Whitener’, so also when ‘Ujala Whitener’ is asked for no dealer would give the commodity ‘AVP’. Instead, when a laundry brightener is asked for obviously the dealer would give ‘Ujala Whitener’ as a similar product. So in common parlance and commercial parlance ‘Ujala Whitener’ is known and treated as a ‘laundry brightener’. In the Third Schedule there is no other entry for such products and so it cannot be classifiable under the Third Schedule. In the case of ‘Ujala Stiff & Shine’ the raw material used is Poly Vinyl Acetate (PVA) coming under the specific HSN 3905.12.90 and admittedly the product marketed as ‘Ujala Stiff and Shine’ fabric stiffener is in other form and the formulation arrived at in the previous paragraphs in the case of ‘Ujala Whitener’ is squarely applicable in this case also. It is a settled position that so long as the trade recognises it as different commodity and its uses are different, the item has to be recognised as different goods. Here the products in question produced are by itself a commercial commodity capable of being sold or supplied with distinct identities when compared to the raw materials used. In the instant case these requirements are satisfied and so the products in question can no longer be treated as the same product as ‘imputed’ by virtue of its mere presence in a negligible proportion. In the instant case these requirements are satisfied and so the products in question can no longer be treated as the same product as ‘imputed’ by virtue of its mere presence in a negligible proportion. As per Section 6(1)(d) goods not covered under clauses (a) or (c) are taxable @ 12.5%and the Government is empowered to notify list of such goods. Accordingly, the Government had notified the list of such goods as per SRO No. 82 of 2006. Vide Entry 27 inter alia ‘laundry brighteners’ have been specifically picked out and placed in 12.5%category making the intention clear.” And again “The next question to be considered is in what sub-entry the product in question is to be placed. The applicant had pointed out that in Entry 27 of SRO No. 82 of 2006, the product ‘laundry whitener’ is mentioned only in the heading and not mentioned in the sub-entries. By picking out the product ‘laundry whitener’ and including it specifically in the heading of the said entry, the intention is made specially clear. But since no specific HSN has been assigned to the products in question and the products are not specifically mentioned elsewhere, it has necessarily to go under Entry 103 i.e. the residual entry of SRO No. 82 of 2007 taxable @ 12.5%.” 6. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the Commissioner opined that the products “Ujala Supreme” and “Ujala Stiff and Shine” are classifiable under Entry 103 of SRO No. 82 of 2006 and would attract tax @ 12.5%. 16. The fact situation before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pari-materia identical to that in the petitions before this Court. Even the purpose and product was the same. The only distinction that can be drawn was in respect of certain provision of the H.P. VAT Act and the Kerala VAT Act. However, the distinctive features of both the Acts, in our considered view, will not be material as far as drawing of precedence in instant petitions is concerned. The fact of the matter remains that under the Kerala Act, the schedule specified certain products/articles to be taxable at lesser rate and the products/articles outside schedule at higher rate under residuary category, as is in the case under H.P. VAT Act. The fact of the matter remains that under the Kerala Act, the schedule specified certain products/articles to be taxable at lesser rate and the products/articles outside schedule at higher rate under residuary category, as is in the case under H.P. VAT Act. The rules of interpretation provided in Kerala Act are not available in H.P. VAT Act, but that can not be used to the disadvantage of the petitioner for the reason that such rules have been used by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to interpret the real import of the relevant Entry of the Schedule. 17. The Entry in Column-II of notification issued by the respondent detailing Industrial input and packing material entry against Entry 55 (113) of Schedule-A, Part II-A of H.P. VAT Act, denotes the HSN number, i.e. Harmonized System of Nomenclature developed by International Customs Organization and adopted in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Noticeably, the Entry against serial No. 113 of the notification issued by respondent detailing Industrial input and packing material specified in Entry 54 of Part-2 of Schedule-A of the H.P. VAT Act, can not be said to be used without purpose. The only corollary that can be drawn from the use of HSN code is to have reference of the product viz-a-viz Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for the purposes of identification. Since the AVP is referable to item denoted by HSN code 3204 as adopted by Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the same can not be ignored for the purposes of H.P. VAT Act. The fact that Hon’ble Supreme Court, after relying upon the report of the experts, has concluded that mere dilution of AVP does not change its character, is sufficient to reject the contention raised by the respondent. The product, therefore, remains AVP, having coverage under Entry 54 (113) of Part-II of Schedule-A of H.P. VAT Act. 18. By discussing the relevant Entry of Kerala Act corresponding to Entry 54 (113) of Part-II of Schedule-A of H.P. VAT Act with the help of rules of interpretation, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “40. The product, therefore, remains AVP, having coverage under Entry 54 (113) of Part-II of Schedule-A of H.P. VAT Act. 18. By discussing the relevant Entry of Kerala Act corresponding to Entry 54 (113) of Part-II of Schedule-A of H.P. VAT Act with the help of rules of interpretation, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “40. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear as crystal that the two goods/products have been held to be covered under HSN Code 3905 and HSN Code 3204.12.94 and hence, there can be no shadow of doubt that the said entries fall under Schedule III List A Entries 155(8)(d) and 118(5) to the 2003 Act covering industrial inputs and packaging materials, but that would not be material and relevant regard being had to the Rules of Interpretation which are applicable. The subject-matter of the list will not fall under residuary Entry 103 in SRO No. 82 of 2006 dated 21-1-2006, if the goods in question fall in any entry of any of the Schedules. That is what is conveyed by the language employed in Entry 103. The said entry, as we find, does not stipulate or carve out any exception in respect of List A of the Third Schedule. That being the position, once goods fall under any of the HSN classification, that is, the goods/commodities that are included in List A of Third Schedule, Entry 103, which is residuary in nature, would not get attracted. 41. The submissions of the learned counsel for the State that the decisions under the Excise Act would have no play, for they deal with the issue of manufacture, does not commend acceptance. The High Court has elaborately dwelled upon the issue of manufacture. We have noticed the judgments rendered by Cestat where there is no manufacturing. It is pertinent to state here that the question of manufacture is not relevant for the purposes of the 2003 Act. What is really relevant is the classification based upon the HSN number. The decisions rendered by Cestat have decided on the classification which is founded upon the HSN number. It has been laid down that after dilution with water the goods continue to remain classified under the same HSN number. This means that the goods remain in List A of the Third Schedule. The decisions rendered by Cestat have decided on the classification which is founded upon the HSN number. It has been laid down that after dilution with water the goods continue to remain classified under the same HSN number. This means that the goods remain in List A of the Third Schedule. It may be noted that the position would have been totally different had the goods in question been separately and specifically itemised in SRO No. 82 of 2006 dated 21-1- 2006. The goods which are specifically mentioned in any of the entries of the said SRO, would be chargeable to tax @ 12.5%. But that is not the lis here, for the Revenue has included the goods in the residuary Entry 103 and the said entry, by no stretch of reasoning, can be made applicable. 42. The High Court, we are disposed to think, has missed the issue in entirety and, therefore, we are obliged to dislodge the impugned judgment and orders. However, if any appellant assessee has paid the amount of VAT to the State Government, they will not be entitled to get any refund of the said amount. 43. Consequently, the appeals are allowed and the judgment and orders are set aside with the stipulation that none of the appellant assessees would be entitled to refund. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs." 19. Thus, we are of the considered view, that the question of law framed by us in these petitions finds its answer on all fronts from the aforesaid judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The product ‘Ujala Supreme’ is thus held to be classifiable under Entry 55 (113) of Schedule-A, Part II-A of H.P. VAT Act, 2005 as “Synthetic organic colouring matter” and assessable to the rate of VAT applicable to such Entry of Schedule-A. 20. In light of above discussion, we find merits in these petitions and the same are allowed. Order dated 17.09.2014 passed by Tribunal as also the order passed by the Appellate Authority and Assessing Officer are set-aside. The product ‘Ujala Supreme’ is held liable for VAT under H.P. VAT Act at the rate which is applicable for items against Entry 54(113) of the Part-II of Schedule-A of H.P. VAT Act and the petitions are accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.