Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J.

1. This petition is filed by the petitioners-Revenue for review of the judgment and order dated 23.8.2012 passed by this Court in CRP No. 43 of 2012 wherein this Court considering the order of rejection of the revision petition dated 21.10.2011 passed in Rev. case No. 60 of 2011 and the order dated 23.6.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Taxes, the Revisional authority, directed the petitioner revenue, the respondents therein, to adopt the twin test for determining the classification of the seized goods meaning thereby the common parlance test such as the functional utility and pre-dominance of the primary uses of the commodity apart from taking into account other understanding in common parlance such as to consider the product literature and label etc. and thereafter to determine the composition and character of the product on resorting to the scientific test and also ordered granting liberty to the Commissioner of Taxes to take aid from the Deputy Drug Controller for determining the position of the said product to classify the product in controversy having the brand name of 'Betonin AST Tonic' manufactured by M/s. Sangfroid Industries Ltd., IDA, Kothur, Andhra Pradesh with some other observations. Heard Mr. K. Roy, learned Counsel for the review petitioners as well as Mr. S. Deb, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The brief facts needed to be discussed for disposal of the instant review petition are as follows:

The respondent, a registered dealer under Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the, TVAT Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, the CST Act), had filed a revision petition before this Court under Section 72 of the TVAT Act challenging the order dated 21.10.2011 passed in Rev. case No. 60 of 2011 and the order dated 23.06.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Taxes, the Revisional authority as well as the order of seizure dated 25.3.2011 passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Churaibari, the seizing authority, in Seizure case No. 1549/CRB/10-11 on being seized the goods as declared by the respondent as 'HL medicine' attracting tax @ 5% whereas the seized goods are according to the seizing authority are 'Appetite Tonic' which is taxable @ 13.5% covered by Entry No. 183 under Schedule II(b).

3. The grievance of the respondent-dealer before this Court in the revision petition was that seized goods 'Betonin AST Tonic,' fall under the category of 'drugs' and the tax prescribed for the said product is 5% as covered by Entry No. 67(i) of Schedule II(a) of the TVAT Act whereas tonic is covered by Entry No. 183 of Schedule II(b) which is taxable @ 13.5% and the learned Revenue authority on the plea of mis-declaration of the aforesaid seized goods, namely, 'Betonin AST Tonic' which were shown as HL medicine demanded 13.5% of tax instead of 5% and the other grounds as taken before this Court at the time of hearing of the revision petition was that the Deputy Drugs Controller had in an unambiguous term opined that 'Betonin' is a drug as per definition of 'drugs' under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the respondent had made that reference for satisfying the revenue authority that the seized goods were the goods within the purview of the drugs and certain documents were also placed before the Revenue authority to demonstrate the correlation with the present case and the previous case, but the Revenue authority did not accept the contention of the respondent-dealer and passed the order as stated supra. Being aggrieved, the respondent-dealer filed the revision petition under Section 72 of the TVAT Act.

4. The petitioners-revenue, i.e. the respondents in the revision petition contested the case by way of filing their affidavit wherein it has been contended that the order of seizure dated 25.3.2011 or the impugned order dated 21.10.2011 cannot be stated to be erroneous or de hors the statutory pro