1. The turnover in dispute in these tax revision cases is a sum of Rs. 40,14,743. The said sum represents the sales turnover of three items, namely, explosives, detonators and safety fuses. The assessee contended that the sales of these items are taxable at multi-point at the rate of 4 per cent. But the Revenue contended that the three items will either fall under item 53 or under item 138 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act, and therefore, the sales of these items should be taxed at a single point and at a higher rate. The Tribunal, following the decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Indian Detonators Ltd., Hyderabad  28 STC 84 held that all these items will not come within the purview of entries 53 and 138 of the First Schedule as contended by the Revenue, and therefore, they have to be taxed only at 4 per cent multi-point. The Tribunal, though in the main part of its order dealt with all the three items, in the final portion of the order, reference has bee made only to detonators and safety fuses and no reference was made with respect to explosives. Since the omission of the item 'explosives' was taken advantage of by the Revenue, the assessee filed a petition for rectification of the Tribunal's order, and the Tribunal, considering the omission as purely a mistake, rectified its order so as to cover all the three items, namely, explosives, detonators and safety fuses. Thus, the order of the Tribunal as rectified proceeds on the basis that the said three items sold by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 40,14,743 have to be taxed at multi-point and not a single point treating those items as coming either under entry 53 or under entry 138 of the First Schedule as contended by the Revenue. Though the decision of the Tribunal has been challenged before us, we are convinced that the Tribunal has come to the right conclusion. A perusal of entries 53 and 138 of the First Schedule will clearly indicate that those entries cannot take in either explosives or detonators or safety fuses. Therefore, the contention of the Revenue that these items are taxable at single point has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal. In our view, no interference is called for in these cases. The tax cases are accordingly dismissed.