Plain meaning in tax classification governs veneers, so goods were taxed as veneers rather than veneer plywood.

Goods described as veneers were classified by the plain language of the sales tax schedule, because in a taxing entry the decisive factor is the article named in the entry, not the use to which it may later be put. Veneers simpliciter fell under entry 94, while entry 95 covered plywood, veneer plywood and hardboards; classification by intended use for decorative plywood was therefore impermissible. The later 1987 amendment was treated only as an aid confirming that veneers and veneer plywood were distinct commodities. The goods were taxable under entry 94 at the lower rate, the assessee succeeded, and the higher-rate assessments were set aside and remitted for recomputation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the goods sold as veneers fell under entry 94 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, or under entry 95 as veneer plywood.

Analysis: The relevant entries had to be construed on their plain language, because in a taxing statute the decisive factor is the article described in the entry and not the use to which it may be put. Entry 94 referred to veneers simpliciter, while entry 95 dealt with plywood, veneer plywood and hardboards. The attempt to classify the commodity by reference to its use for making decorative plywood was not permissible. The later legislative amendment in the Finance Act, 1987, which separately described splints and veneers for matches and veneer plywood, was only an aid to understanding the earlier entries and showed that the two commodities were treated distinctly.

Conclusion: The goods were taxable under entry 94 at 4 per cent and not under entry 95 at 10 per cent, and the assessee succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The assessments and concurrent orders fixing the higher rate were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the assessing authority to apply entry 94 and determine tax accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: In classifying goods under a taxing entry, the court must apply the plain meaning of the description in the schedule and cannot determine liability by the commodity's use where the entry itself is unambiguous.

---