Tax classification of HDPE woven sacks prevailed over HDPE bags, confirming liability at the higher rate.

The classification dispute turned on whether the goods sold were HDPE bags or HDPE woven sacks. The court treated the product description in the purchase orders and invoices as showing supply of woven sacks suitable for packing cement, and held that HDPE bags and HDPE woven sacks are distinct entries. Because taxing entries must be applied according to their words, Entry 136 governing HDPE woven sacks prevailed over Entry 129 for HDPE bags, and purposive extension of the narrower entry was rejected. The commodity was therefore liable to tax at 8%.

---

---

Issues: Whether the commodity sold by the petitioner for the relevant period was HDPE bags or HDPE woven sacks, and whether it was taxable at 4% or 8%.

Analysis: The product description in the purchase orders showed that the goods supplied were PP woven sacks suitable for packing cement, and the invoices did not exhaustively negate that description. Entry 136 specifically covered HDPE woven sacks, while Entry 129 covered HDPE bags. The two items were distinct, and the earlier judicial view that HDPE bags and HDPE woven sacks are not the same product supported that classification. In a taxing statute, the words of the entry control the result and there is no scope for extending Entry 129 by purposive construction where the goods are clearly covered by Entry 136.

Conclusion: The commodity sold was HDPE woven sacks and it was exigible to tax at 8%.

---