P.R. Raman, J.

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 62 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, challenging an order of clarification passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 21.04.2008 in exercise of the power conferred on him under Section 94 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The appellant is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and engaged in the manufacture of drugs by name 'Vicks' available in oral tablet, balm and inhaler. Annexure A order was passed in an application put in by Geofrin Pettah, Margin Free Super Stockist, A.K.G. Road, Edappally, seeking for clarification as to the rate of tax of 'Vicks' brand confectionary and Balms; inter alia contending that their medicines stand included in the entry 36 of the 3rd schedule of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The Commissioner took the view that these items are sold over the counter in almost all retail shops and are available freely and in view of the clause 23 to the Rules of Interpretation appended to the statute, which according to him, differentiated these items against classification under entry 36 of 3rd schedule. According to him Vicks tablets and Balm may contain certain added medicaments and in common parlance it is not treated as a medicine as appearing in Entry 36 of 3rd schedule. Accordingly, it was clarified that Vicks tablets are 'confectionery' falling under Entry 24(1) of SRO 82/2006 and taxable at the rate of 12.5% and that Vicks balm also taxable at the rate of 12.5% vide Entry 103 of SRO 82/2006.

2. Though the appellant is the manufacturer of the products, a clarification was sought for by the dealer. So a preliminary objection was raised as to the maintainability of the appeal at the time of admission. Subject to the right of the parties to raise their respective contention, this was admitted. We heard both sides. Section 94 of the KVAT Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', empowers the Commissioner to issue clarification which reads as follows: S 94. Power of Commissioner to issue clarification:-

(1) If any dispute arises, otherwise than in a proceedings before any appellate or revisional authority or in any Court or Tribunal, as to whether, for the purpose of this Act,--

(a) any person is a dealer; or

(b) any transaction is a sale; or

(c) any particular dealer is required to be registered; or

(d) any tax is payable in respect of any sale or purchase, or if tax is payable, the point and the rate thereof; or

(e) any activity carried out in any goods amounts to or results in the manufacture of goods;

such dispute shall be decided by the Commissioner on application by a dealer or any other person. Further, as per Section 94 (5) of the Act every order issued by the Commissioner under sub section (1) shall, subject to the provisions of Section 62, be final and binding on the applicant and all authorities subordinate to the Commissioner, including Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, any other dealer of the same product in other parts of the State or even the appellant himself happens to raise this question before the concerned assessing officer, the said authority being bound by the statutory prescription under Section 94 (5) of the Act, cannot decide the question independently and will be bound to give effect to the order issued by the Commissioner. Thus a clarification order issued by the Commissioner under Section 94 (1) has binding effect on the authorities subordinate to the Commissioner and since the appellant is the manufacturer of the products in respect of the clarification issued, it is a 'person aggrieved' by the Order passed under Section 94(1). Now coming back to Section 62, which provides for an appeal to the High Court and it confers a right of appeal to "any person objecting to an order affecting him passed under Section 59 A". Therefore in order that a person gets right of appeal under Section 62, he need only show that he is objecting to the order because it affects him and no