Summarize the following court judgment. Appeals Nos. 90 andand 91 of 1965. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 4	 1963 of the Madras High Court in Tax Cases Nos. 120 and 121 of 1963. 80 A. Ranganandhan Chetty and A. V. Rangam	 for the appel lant. T. A. Ramachandran and O. C. Mathur for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba Rao	 J. These appeals	 by special leave	 raise the question of the true construction of the provisions of r. 5(1) (i) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules	 1939	 hereinafter referred to as the Rules. The facts are not in dispute and they may be briefly stated. The respondent	 Messrs Swastik Tobacco Factory	 is a dealer in tobacco. It purchased raw tobacco; by processing it in a prescribed manner	 converted it into chewing tobacco and sold it as such in small paper packets. The said process has been described by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Bell Mark Tobacco Co. vs Government of Madras(1) thus : "Taking	 however	 the cumulative effect of the various processes to which the assessee subjected the tobacco before he sold it is clear that what was eventually sold by the assessee was a manufactured product	 manufactured from the tobacco that the assesses had purchased. Soaking in jaggery water is not the only process to be considered. The addition of flavouring essences and shredding of the tobacco should establish that what the assesses sold was a product substantially different from what he had purchased." for the purpose of these appeals	 it was not disputed that the respondent purchased raw tobacco	 converted it by a manufacturing process into chewing tobacco and sold it in small paper packets. The respondent paid excise duty in respect of the raw tobacco purchased by it. For the assessment years 1955 56 and 1956 57	 the Assistant cum Deputy Commercial Tax Officer assessed the respondent to sales tax on the turnover of Rs. 10	67	923 10 9 and Rs. 7	71	661 11 0 respectively. The respondent	 claimed that the excise duty paid by it to the Central ' Government in respect of the raw tobacco should be deducted from the turnover ascertained by the said Officer. But his conten tion was rejected. On appeal	 the order of the said Officer was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. On a further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal	 the assessee	 in addition to the question of deduction	 raised (1) (1961) 12 S.T.C. 126	132. 81 an additional ground that the entire turnover of the sales on chewing tobacco was not liable to be assessed. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The State carried the matter in two revisions to the High Court of Madras. A Division Bench of the said High Court agreed with the view expressed by the Tribunal and dismissed the revisions. Hence the present appeals. Mr. A. V. Rangam	 learned counsel for the State	 argued that the raw tobacco was converted by a manufacturing process into	 chewing tobacco	 a different commodity and that	 therefore	 under r. 5(1) of the Rules	 as excise duty was paid only in respect of the raw tobacco and not chewing tobacco	 the said duty was not deductible from the turnover of the assessee. He did not contest the correctness of the decision of the High Court on the question of the taxability of the chewing tobacco under section 5(vii) of the Act. Mr. T. A. Ramachandran	 learned counsel for the respondent	 contended that the said rule was couched in a comprehensive language so as to take in excise duty paid on raw tobacco converted by a manufacturing process into chewing tobacco. The relevant rule reads thus : "Rule 5. (1) The tax or taxes under section 3 or 5 or 5A or the notification or notifications under section 6(1) shall be levied on the net turnover of the dealers. In determining the net turnover the amounts specified in the following clauses shall	 subject to the condition specified therein	 be deducted from the gross turnover of a dealer : (i) the excise duty	 if any	 paid by the dealer to the Central Government in respect of the goods sold by him; Both the advocates argued	 on the basis of the factual position	. that packets of chewing tobacco were goods different from tobacco from which the said goods were manufactured. While the learned counsel for the State laid emphasis on the words "goods sold by him"	 the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the expression "in respect of" preceding the said words. If	 instead of the expression "in respect of '	 the word "on" were there	 the intention of the rule would be manifest and the answer to the question raised would be obvious. The excise duty paid by the respondent was only on the raw tobacco and not on the goods ' sold by it and	 therefore	 the said duty was not deductible thereunder. So far there is no dispute. But it was said that the 82 expression "in respect of" made all the difference. The words "in respect of"	 it was said	 meant "attributable" and	 therefore	 the argument proceeded	 the excise duty paid on the tobacco	 though it was not paid on the goods sold by the respondent	 was attributable to the said goods sold. The object of the concession is presumably to avoid payment of tax on tax in respect of the same goods. If excise duty was paid by a dealer on certain goods	 it would be deducted from the gross turnover of the dealer in regard to the said goods	 as otherwise	 in effect	 sales tax would have to be paid on the amount paid towards excise duty. This concession could have no relevance if the goods subjected to excise duty were different from the goods sold. Raw tobacco	 when converted by a process of manufacture into chewing tobacco	 be comes a different marketable product. There will be no comparison between the raw tobacco and the chewing tobacco in the matter of demand or even price. Duty on raw tobacco may have some effect on the cost of the manu factured product	 but it cannot possibly be said that the said duty is paid in respect of the manufactured product. Rule 5(1)(i) of the Rules	 therefore	 permits deduction from the gross turnover of the dealer only the excise duty paid by him in respect of the same goods sold by him. Learned counsel for the :respondent cited some English deci sions in support of his contention that the expression "in respect of the goods" was very wide and that it took in the raw material out of which the goods were made. The House of Lords in Inland Revenue Commissioners vs Courts & Co.(1)	 in the context of payment of estate duty	 con strued the words "in respect of" in section 5(2) of the Finance Act	 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 30) and observed that the phrase denoted some imprecise kind of nexus between the property and the estate duty. The House of Lords in Asher vs Seaford Court Estates Ltd. (2) in construing the provisions of section 2	 sub section (3) of Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act	 1920 (10 & 11 Geo. 5	 c. 17)	 held that the expression "in respect of ' must be read as equivalent to "attributable". The Privy Council in Bicber	 Ltd. vs Commissioners of Income tax(1) observed that the said words could mean more than "consisting of" or "namely". It is not necessary to refer to other decisions. It may be accepted that the said expression received a wide interpretation	 (1) 	 732. (3) (2) 83 having regard to the object of the provisions and the setting in which the said words appeared. On the other hand	 Indian tax laws use the expression "in respect of" as synonymous with the expression "on" : see article 288 of the Constitution of India; section 3 of the Indian Income tax Act	 1922; sections 3(2) and 3(5)	 Second Proviso	 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act	 1939; section 3(1A) of the Central Excise and Salt Act	 1944; and sections 9 of the Kerala Sales Tax Act. We should not be understood to have construed the said provisions	 but only have referred to their to state the legislative practice. Consistent with the said practice	 r. 5(1)(i) of the Rules uses the same expression. When the said rule says "excise duty paid in respect of the goods"	 the excise duty referred to is the excise duty paid under section 3(1)	 read with the Schedule	 of the (1 of 1944). Under the	 said section	 read with the Schedule	 excise duty is levied on the goods described in the Schedule. Therefore	 when r. 5(1)(i) of the Rules refers to the duty paid in respect of the goods to the Central Government	 it necessarily refers to the duty paid on the goods mentioned in the Schedule. As the duty exempted from the gross turnover is the duty so paid under the Central Act	 read with the Schedule	 the expression "in respect of" in the context can only mean excise duty paid on goods. In our view	 the expression "in respect of the goods" in r. 5(1)(i) of the Rules means only "on the goods". Even if the word "attributable" is substituted for the words "in respect of"	 the result win not be different	 for the duty paid shall be attributable to the goods. If it was paid on the raw material it can be attributable only to the raw material and not to the goods. We	 therefore	 hold that only excise duty paid on the goods sold by the assessee is deductible from the gross turnover under r. 5(1)(i) of the Rules. We cannot	 therefore	 agree with the construction of r. 5(1)(i) of the Rules accepted by the High Court. No other question was raised before us. In the result	 we modify the order of the High Court accordingly. In the circumstances	 we direct the parties to bear their respective costs. Order modified.

The respondent factory used to purchase raw tobacco and after processing it	 sell it as chewing tobacco. Excise duty was paid by the factory in respect of raw tobacco purchased by it. In sales tax proceedings the factory contended that the excise duty so paid to the Central Government must be deducted to arrive at the net turnover under r. 5(1)i) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules	 1939. The assessing officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the contention but it was accepted by the Tribunal. The revision filed by the. State in the High Court was dismissed	 whereupon the State appealed to this Court by special leave. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the raw tobacco was converted by a manufacturing process into chewing tobacco	 a different commodity and that	 therefore	 under r. 5(1)(i) of the Rules	 as excise duty was paid only in respect of raw tobacco and not chewing tobacco the said duty was not deductible from the turnover of the assesses. HELD : 'Me object of the concession in r. 5(1)(i) is presumably to avoid payment of tax on tax in respect of the same goods. This concession would have no relevance if the goods subjected to excise duty were different from the goods sold. Tobacco when converted by a process of manufacture into chewing tobacco becomes a different marketable product. Duty on raw tobacco cannot therefore be said to be paid in respect of the manufactured product. [82 B D] The expression "in respect of the goods" in r. 5(1)(i) means only on the goods"	 and cannot take in the raw material out of which the goods were made. [83 E] Inland Revenue Commissioners vs Court & Co. [1963] 2 All. E.R. 722 and Asher vs Seaford Court Estates Ltd.	 L.R. 	 considered. The excise duty paid by the respondent was only on the raw tobacco and not on the goods sold by it	 and therefore	 the said duty could not be deducted from its turnover under r. 5(1) (i). [83 E F]