M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ URS, J. - These four appeals arising out of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, are directed against the common order dated January 16, 1984, made in exercise of the powers conferred on the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

The appellant-assessee is a distiller and dealer registered under the Act. With reference to his purchase of molasses for the purpose of manufacturing ethyl alcohol, he made use of form 37 prescribed under the Act for the purpose of claiming concessional rate of tax on the purchase of molasses which he treated as a component part of the end-product (ethyl alcohol) sold by him in the State. The assessing authority for the relevant years, viz., 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79 imposed penalty in different sums, with the quantum of which we may not concern ourselves, inter alia, on the ground that there was abuse of the form inasmuch as it could not be said that molasses form identifiable component of the end-product ethyl alcohol manufactured by the assessee. Aggrieved by such imposition of penalty for abuse of the form, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. By a common order dated February 16, 1981, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore City Division, Bangalore, set aside the imposition of penalty by the assessing authority, inter alia, on the ground that no penalty could have been imposed under section 5(3-B) as there was no abuse of the form in obtaining molasses and consuming it for production of ethyl alcohol as molasses did form a component of such end-product. The assessee demonstrated before the appellate authority by production of a certificate issued by the Chief Chemist of the assessee-company that molasses were chemically identifiable in the end-product. Acting on such demonstration, the appeals came to be allowed and the orders of penalty for the relevant assessment years were set aside. Therefore, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, respondent No. 1 herein, issued show cause notice in purported exercise of his power under section 22-A of the Act having considered that the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner should not be set aside and the penalties reimposed. Despite the cause shown, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, by his order dated January 16, 1984, set aside the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner and restored the order of the assessing authority for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 while he remanded for fresh determination of the penalties in respect of assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79, inter alia, on the ground that certain purchases of molasses in those years by the assessee-company had not been taken into account by the assessing authority.

Therefore, what falls for our determination in these appeals are the following two questions :

"(1) Whether under section 5(3-A) of the Act read with its explanation, a very restricted meaning should be given to the expression 'component part' occurring in that sub-section ?

(2) Whether the Commissioner was correct in coming to the conclusion that by allowing the appeal, the Additional Deputy Commissioner had permitted abuse of the form by the assessee ?"

It will be, therefore, useful to set out the relevant sub-section together with its proviso and explanation to understand the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the assessee as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka. Sub-section (3-A) of section 5 of the Act as it then stood reads as follows :

"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (3), the tax payable by