RAMAPRASADA RAO, J.

This tax case is directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry, dated 30th September, 1969.

The assessment year is 1966-67 and the product in discussion and which is the subject-matter in this tax case is leco, admittedly manufactured by the Neyveli Lignite Corporation. The respondent is a dealer in leco and he was assessed finally for the year 1966-67 on a taxable turnover of Rs. 1, 20, 807.82. Certain exemptions were also granted to him. Ultimately, the taxable turnover comprised inter alia the following sales : "Sales of leco Rs. 81, 578.98". A tax at the rate of 2 per cent. single point was imposed thereon by the taxing authorities and that Was sustained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the ground that leco comes under "coke in all its forms" and, rightly assessable at 2 per cent. single point. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was of the view that in view of the specific provision in the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act (6 of 1967), hereinafter referred to as the Act, the commodity known as leco was taxable. He relied upon the text of item 18 of Schedule III to the said Act which granted an exemption from tax to products such as firewood and charcoal. Interpreting such an item in the schedule, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was of the view that leco was not charcoal and, therefore, the assessee could not get the benefit of the exemption, and accordingly, brought the turnover into the net of taxation. On a second appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal reversed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner holding that leco as ordinarily understood is charcoal and it could be classified as domestic fuel and it gains the exemption under item 18 of Schedule III of the Act. As against this, the tax case has been field by the State of Pondicherry represented by the Deputy Commissioner (Sales Tax), Pondicherry.The learned Government Pleader contends that leco has a geological origin being a product won from the earth and, therefore, it cannot be classified as charcoal within the meaning of item 18 of Schedule III of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act. He tries to distinguish the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh He would factually argue that the commodity in question being a by-product in the course of manufacture of lignite by a particular corporation, it cannot be understood as a substitute or the equivalent of charcoal and, therefore, the Tribunal's order is wrong.

It is no doubt true that under item 18 of Schedule III of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967, an exemption is granted to commodities named therein as firewood and charcoal. It is, therefore, necessary for the appellant in this tax case to establish factually that leco is not charcoal. The argument advanced is that leco being a by-product in the course of manufacture of lignite and as such manufacture involves experimentation on the earth and extraction of the main chemical from and out of the said process, even the by-product should, therefore, be geologically understood as one which has been so extracted from the earth, and thus, understood, leco cannot be charcoal. This contention appears to be artificial. In a taxing statute, if a word is used and if that word is a popular one and has a commercial meaning, then it is by far settled that such popular meaning or the commercial understanding of that word should prevail in spite of the meaning that the word might secure by the application of the principles of geology, physics or chemistry. As a matter of fact, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh affirmed the judgment of the learned Judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh There, the learned Judges had occasion to consider the import of the word "coal" as