JUDGMENT

PATHAK, J.:— The question raised in these appeals is whether the "Rayon Tyre Cord Fabric" manufactured by the appellant is a rayon fabric covered by item 18 of the Schedule to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, and therefore exempt from sales-tax under the Central Sales Tax Act.

2. The appellant owns an industrial unit, Shriram Rayons, situated at Kota in the State of Rajasthan. It manufactures a product described as "Rayon Tyre Cord Fabric". The appellant claims that the product falls within item 18 of the Schedule to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act which exempts from sales-tax and purchase tax-

"All cotton fabrics, rayon or artificial silk fabrics, woollen fabrics as defined in the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (Central Act 58 of 1957)."

Sec. 2 (c) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 declares that the expression "rayon or artificial silk fabrics" shall have the meaning assigned to it in Item 22 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Item 22 reads :-

" "Rayon or artificial silk fabrics" means all varieties of fabrics manufactured either wholly or party from rayon or artificial silk and includes embroidery in the piece, in strips or in motifs and fabrics impregnated or coated with preparations of cellulose derivatives or of other artificial plastic materials,..........."

3. The appellant was assessed to sales-tax by the Commercial Tax Officer for the years 1969-70 and 1970-71 on the turnover of rayon tyre cord fabric. The plea that the product was exempt from sales-tax was not accepted. Two writ petitions were filed by the appellant in the Rajasthan High Court against the assessments while appeals were also filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that disputed questions of fact were involved in the controversy and recourse should be had to the remedy by way of appeal. Against the order of the High Court the appellant obtained from the SC special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. Meanwhile, the Commercial Tax Officer made a provisional assessment on the turnover of rayon tyre cord fabric for the period 1971-72. Against the assessment the appellant filed a writ petition directly in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The two appeals and the writ petition were dismissed by this Court on 3rd May, 1976. The judgment is reported in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. B. R. Gupta 38 STC 113. The court observed that the controversy "requires careful consideration of the technical processes of manufacturing, of the composition of the type cord fabric, and an evaluation of opinions of experts on the subject, to be able to decide the question satisfactorily", as well as "some examination of commercial usage and terminology or the language of the market in goods of this type." It upheld the view taken by the High Court that the matter was one for determination by the taxing authorities.

4. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was meanwhile seized of not only the two appeals pertaining to the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 but also appeals against the assessment order for 1971-72 and a provisional assessment for the first six months of the assessment year 1972-73. When the appeals were taken up by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) voluminous evidence, both oral and documentary, was led before him. The appeals were, nevertheless, dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant applied in revision to the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, but again met with no success. The Board expressed the view that the product was not a fabric and dismissed the revision petitions by their order dated 6th October, 1977. The present appeals are directed against that order.

5. Some undisputed facts concerning the product manufactured by the appellant may be set out. Rayon fibre is spun into rayon and twisted into cord. The cords are arranged lengthwise, and