We think the answer to this question has to be in the affirmative, Revert ing once again to the contentions of the Revenue in Rajamani (which are also the con tentions reiterated before us for the Revenue), it will be remembered that Rajamani specifically dealt with the language of the two explanations 10 S.2(15) and that its decision rested on three grounds: (i) a 'disposition ', as held on Goli Eswariah, S.C., has to be a 'bilateral ' or 'multilateral ' act or trans action, not a unilateral act; (ii) the act of blending does not create any right enforceable against the blender or his property but only brings to the surface rights already latent and inherent in the others; and (iii) the act of blending does not result in the extinguishment of any right of the blender with a correlative conferral of benefit on others.