Manjula Chellur, J.

These two revision petitions are before us by way of reference dated 12.09.2006. The reference reads as follows :

"The issue raised, that is classification of the item polystik compound is squarely covered by the decision of this court reported in State of Kerala v. Shaji Joseph (2003)11 KTR 210). In the said decision, this court has considered the nature and use of the product and held that the item is essentially an adhesive as its main purpose is to fix the rain guard to the rubber tree. The other purpose, such as prevention of leakage to the cut portion of the bark which protests the tree is found to be incidental. However, counsel for the respondent assessee has relied on an unreported decision of this court in T.R.C 448 of 2002, wherein this court has held that the item is a plant protection chemical. We find from the judgment that the later decision does not refer to earlier judgment. Moreover, this court just followed the certificates issued by two authorities to hold that the item is a plant protection chemical. None of the experts who issued the certificates had stated that the item is plant protection chemical and what they have stated is that the item is chemical. We do not know what is the basis to hold that the chemical has plant-protection property. In fact, the other words used in the entry are pesticides and fungicides. It is common knowledge that polystik compound is essentially derived from bitumen, which is a petroleum product and it in no way is used as a chemical to protect plants. We are of the view that persons, who issued the certificates, based on which judgment is rendered by this court, are not competent to talk about chemicals protecting plants. We therefore do not approve the later decision of this court. We are of the view that since there is conflict of views expressed by two Division Benches, the matter should be referred to Full Bench. Accordingly, we refer this matter to Full Bench for decision by it. Registry will place the matter before the Honourable The Chief Justice for appropriate orders on posting".

2. The controversy in these revision petitions is, whether the item polystik compound or the rain guard compound can be classified as an adhesive or a rain guard coat or a chemical for the protection of plants.

3. According to the learned Government Pleader, the Rubber Board has published material, how rain guarding has to be processed. Literature on rain guarding process indicates what exactly the purpose for which rain guard compound is used i.e. only as an adhesive and not as a chemical. In other words, the learned Government Pleader contends, the property contained in this particular material has a great adhesive quality. Because of this quality to protect the tapping portion of the plant, so as to protect water entering when it is tapped, a guard is put around the trunk just above the place where the rubber is tapped. In order to put the rain guard as such, polythene material, kora cloth, stapler pin and rain guard compound are used. After putting the polythene cloth and a piece of kora cloth, stapler pin is used to attach the kora cloth and polythene material. A thin layer of rain guard compound is applied to the bark of the rubber plant, then a polythene cover is put around the trunk, where it is cut. Then around the polythene, a kora cloth is tied up and again whole area is covered with rain guard compound as an adhesive. Twice this compound is used to protect the area from rain, in order to see that, the polythene sheets and kora cloth put around the trunk of the rubber plant does not come off during rainy season.

4. According to the learned counsel for the assessees/respondents, though the product in question has an adhesive quality, the purpose for which it is used is, no seepage occurs so far as the rubber plant is concerned. Therefore, it is only a rain proof material used to prevent seepage of water so as to obstruct any damage to the property, like fungu