contending that brown coconuts are green fruits within the meaning of item 10 of rule 4 of the Rules and therefore, they are exempted articles, not exigible to octroi. The High Court rejected the writ petition. Hence this appeal, by special leave. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, HELD: The watery coconut (brown coconut) is not a green fruit but is a separate entity by itself. it cannot also be considered to be a dry fruit within the meaning of entry 11 of Rule 4. Dried fruit is distinct from the coconut. There- fore, the watery coconut (brown coconut) does not fall within the meaning of item 13B of Rule 4. of the Rules also. All articles or goods which are not specified elsewhere in the schedule or in the list of exempted articles or goods would fall under item 55 of Rule 14. Brown coconut is not an exempted article among the list of articles in item 10 of Rule, namely, green fruit Brown coconut (watery coconut) would fall within item 55 of Rule 14 of the Rules and is exigible to octroi. [397D-E] Ramavtar Budhaiprasad v. Asstt. Sales Tax Officer, Akola, [1961] 12 STC 286; Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.v.S.N. Brothers, [1973] 31 STC 302; P.S. Thillai Chidam- bara Nadar v. Addl. Appellate Asstt. Corotar., Madurai and Anr., [1985] 60 STC 80; Sri Krishna Coconut Co. v. Commer- cial Tax Officer, Amalapuram, [1965] 16 STC 511; Kunchi Rajeshwara Sastry and Sons and Anr. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kakinada and Ors., [1976] 37 STC 399; Sri Lakshmi Coconut Industries v. The State of Karnataka and Anr., [1980] 46 STC 404; Deputy Commissioner of Agrl. Income ï7 and Commissioner of Sales-tax v. Ram Kumar Nand Kumar, [1973] 31 STC 321, referred to. JUDGMENT: