1. The only question that arises for our consideration in this tax revision case filed by the assessee is whether the mixture of maize with rice bran and molasses is eligible for exemption under the Notification No. II(1) Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments 316/79 dated 12th April, 1979. The Tribunal has taken the view that since maize has not been exempted by virtue of any notification, the mixture of maize with rice bran and molasses cannot be exempted from tax. The said decision of the Tribunal has been challenged before us. But we are of the view that the Tribunal has come to the right conclusion on the facts and in the circumstances of this case. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-assessee has sold during the period from 17th July, 1980 to 14th August, 1980 mixture of maize with rice bran and molasses, the turnover being Rs. 48,990. It is in respect of that turnover the assessee seeks exemption on the basis of the said Notification No. II(1) Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments 316/79 dated 12th April, 1979. The said notification issued under section 17(1) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 exempts cattle feed, namely, hay, straw or rice bran or husk and dust of pulses and grams, but excluding brokens of pulses and gams, oil-cakes and cotton seeds. Thus, the exemption conferred by the notification is restricted to hay, straw or rice bran or husk and dust of pulses and grams, which are normally used as cattle feed. The assessee admittedly has sold cattle feed manufactured out of rice bran and maize mixed with molasses. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, what the assessee had sold is nothing but cattle feed and merely because cease to has been added to rice bran and molasses, the commodity sold cannot cease to be a cattle feed. As can be seen from the notification, it is not any cattle feed that is exempted and it is only particular cattle feed like hay, straw or rice bran or husk and dust of pulses and grams that is exempted. The cattle feed which is exempted under the notification does not comprehend any item manufactured out of maize. The commodity sold by the assessee covering the disputed turnover does not come under the exemption contemplated under the said notification, for the said commodity is not cattle feed, namely, hay, straw or rice bran or husk and dust of pulses and grams, but is one made out of maize and rice bran and molasses. Therefore the cattle feed sold by the assessee during the period in question cannot be said to be one covered by the exemption under the said notification.
2. The learned counsel for the assessee then contends that the sale of maize itself has been exempted under Notification No. 89 of 1970 dated 14th March, 1970 and therefore the mixture of maize (which is an exempted item) and rice bran (which is also an exempted item) should also be taken to be exempted. According to the learned counsel, if each of the components constituting the mixture is exempted by various notification, the whole mixture itself should be taken to have been exempted. But the basis of the said contention of the learned counsel is that the sale of maize is also exempted under Notification No. 89 of 1970 dated 14th March, 1970. A close scrutiny of the said notification shows that it exempts all sales of products of millets like rice, flour, brokens and bran of cholam, cumbu, ragi, thinai, varagu, samai, kudiravali, milo and maize. The said notification does not exempt maize as such, but it exempts bran of maize. It is not the case of the assessee that the mixture sold in this case contained bran of maize. Admittedly maize itself has been used and not bran of maize, which is exempted. Since maize has not been shown to have been exempted by any notification, any mixture containing maize cannot be said to have been exempted. In this view of the matter, the decision, of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. The tax revision case is therefore dismissed.