K. Vinod Chandran, J.

The revisions arise respectively from the order of penalty and an order of assessment for the year 2005-2006. The question raised is common and the only additional question would be as to whether penalty would lie in view of the doubt expressed as to which Entry the product would be covered by. The questions of law are re-framed as follows:

“In the facts and circumstances of the case whether the Tribunal was correct in having held that the subject goods manufactured and sold by the appellant were correctly assessed at the higher rate under S.R.O 82 of 2006 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for brevity KVAT Act) ? and

“Whether, in the context of a genuine doubt as to the product description as per the Entries in the various Schedules, the penalty imposed though modified was rightly imposed at all, by the Tribunal?”

2. The issue arises in so far as the products of the assessee referred to in the assessment order at Annexure A produced in OT[Rev.] No.193 of 2015. They are toasted bread, crunch toast, sweet toast and milk toast. Whether they are assessable under Entry 6 of the First Schedule or Entry 7 of the Third Schedule or Entry 11 of SRO 82/06, all append