THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. These revisions under Section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and original petitions stand remitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as per the remand order dated 28.4.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 3758 of 2011 and connections.

2. The basic substratum of these litigations relates to the interpretation and construction of SRO No. 641 of 1981 and SRO No. 1516 of 1990 issued by the Government of Kerala in exercise of powers conferred under Section 10 of the KGST Act. As per SRO No. 641 of 1981 which is deemed to have come into force on 1.4.1981, reduced rate of tax was prescribed on the purchase of rubber by manufacturers of finished rubber projects within the State for use of such rubber by such manufacturers in the manufacture of finished rubber products within the State. Through SRO No. 1516 of 1990, the term finished rubber products occurring in SRO No. 641 of 1981 was sought to be explained by the introduction of an Explanation which is deemed to have come into force with effect from 1.4.1989 subject to the condition that taxes if any remitted by any dealer shall not be refunded. That Explanation is, inter alia, to the effect that for the purpose of SRO No. 641 of 1981 finished rubber product shall not include any form of rubber which are subjected to processing by mixing with chemicals, gas, fumigation or any other similar process to make any compound of rubber.

3. While completing the assessments for the relevant years, the assessing authority denied the claim of concessional rate of tax on the purchase turnover of raw rubber used in the manufacture of rubber compound on the ground that the goods manufactured by the assessee is compound of rubber which is not a finished product. The first appellate authority upheld that view of the assessing authority. The Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal considered the further appeals noting, in our view, correctly, that the main issue agitated by the assessee in all the appeals is the denial of claim of concessional rate of tax on the purchase turnover of raw rubber used in the manufacture of rubber compound. The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to concessional rate of sales tax on the purchase of rubber used in the production of compound rubber. This Court, through Sales Tax Revision No. 213 of 2006 and connections and also two original petitions tagged along therewith, held against the assessee through judgment dated 18.12.2008 reversing the decision of the Tribunal and restoring the assessments confirmed in the first appeals; however, without answering the grounds raised in the original petitions. This Court turned down the plea of the assessee that the rubber compound or compound of rubber made by the assessee is not any compound of rubber referred to in the notifications. Contextually, it is apposite to quote the relevant portion of the judgment dated 18.12.2008 in STRV No. 213 of 2006 and connections. It reads as follows:-

"Since assessee raised a contention that rubber compound made after processing is different from rubber compound made as manufactured product, we requested the assessee to inform us whether any other form of rubber compound other than what is made by the assessee is available in the market which is fit for use in the manufacture of tyre. The assessee fairly conceded that all through they were making one and the same item that is rubber compound which is made by mixing of rubber with chemicals like carbon black, processing oil, etc. and it is an intermediary for manufacture of tyre. In other words, after the finality of first round of litigation through judgment of this Court, confirmed by the judgment of Supreme Court, the assessee has not changed the pattern of production or made any change in the product to claim the benefit of notification. In other words, raw materials purchased, process involved and the product manufactured continued to be the same all through. We notice that the assesse