Judgment :- RAMASWAMI, J. The assessees are dealers in cotton yarn. In respect of the assessment year 1970-71, on the ground that certain turnover was not assessed at the final assessment, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, who assessed the assessees originally, took proceedings for revising the assessment. A turnover of Rs. 37, 000 reported to be the proceeds of sale of cone winding machines fitted with electrical motors was found to have escaped assessment and accordingly, the assessing officer proposed to include this turnover in the taxable turnover. The assessees objected to the same on the ground that they were not dealers in cone winding machines fitted with electrical motors and that, therefore, the said sale proceeds were not liable to be included in the taxable turnover. They also contended that even if they were to be included in the taxable turnover, they are not "electrical goods" falling under item 41 of the First Schedule to the Act and that, therefore, they are liable to be taxed at multi-point at 3 per cent. as any other goods. The assessing officer rejected both these contentions and held that the sale proceeds of cone winding machines fitted with electrical motors would fall under item 41 of the First Schedule and are liable to be taxed at 9 per cent. and, accordingly, he included this turnover in the assessment. The assessees took up the matter in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was of the view that the sale of cone winding machines had to be considered as a sale of capital goods and, therefore, not liable to be taxed. He also accepted the contention of the assessees that the assessees were not dealers in cone winding machines and they could not be treated as dealers on the ground that it is incidental or ancillary to their main business. Accordingly, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleted the turnover of Rs. 37, 000 and allowed the appeal. The Board of Revenue took up suo motu proceedings and, after issuing the notice of hearing, held that the sale of cone winding machines is incidental to the business of the mills, and the machinery and other such like articles required for the business have to be periodically renewed and the condemned article sold. Therefore, such sales are incidental to the business. Therefore, such sales are incidental to the business. Accordingly, the Board held that the turnover in question was liable to be taxed. On the contention whether it is to be taxed at single point or multi-point, the Board held that it is goods falling under item 41 of the First Schedule liable to be taxed at 9 per cent. Accordingly, it revised the assessment, set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleting the turnover and included the same in the assessable turnover. It is as against this order of the Board that this appeal has been filed.The first contention of the learned counsel for the assessees was that the assessees are carrying on business in cotton textiles and that the sale of cone winding machines could not be treated to be their business or incidental or ancillary to their main business and, hence, it was not liable to be taxed. This contention is not tenable and it is directly against the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Burmah Shell Co. Ltd.and the two decision of this Court that followed the Supreme Court decision, namely, State of Tamil Nadu v. Thermo Electrics and Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) v. Vijayalakshmi Mills Ltd. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Burmah Shell Co. Ltd. the assessee, Burmah Shell Co., sold certain scrap, unserviceable oil drums, rubber hoses, jerry cans rims, unserviceable pipe fittings, old furniture and advertisement materials. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that the assessee was an oil company and that it was not a dealer in these articles. Rejecting the contention, the Supreme Court held that though it cannot be presumed that when the goods were acquired there was an intention to carry on business in those discarded materials, they have to periodically sell these unserviceable articles and it is incidental to the main business and that the assessee should, therefore, be considered as a dealer in these unserviceable articles also. In our case also, the articles in question are articles purchased for the purpose of the business and they have to be periodically renewed and the condemned articles sold. The sale of these articles is, therefore, certainly incidental to the business of the assessees. Accordingly, they will come within the definition of "dealer" read with the definition of "business" in section 2 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The sale of these articles is, therefore, certainly incidental to the business of the assessees. Accordingly, they will come within the definition of "dealer" read with the definition of "business" in section 2 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The first contention of the assessees is, therefore, not acceptable. But we are of the view that the second contention of the assessees is well-founded. Entry 41 of the First Schedule at the relevant time read as follows :"41. All electrical goods, machinery, At the point 9 per cent." instruments, apparatus, appliances, of first sale accessories and component parts in the State. (either sold as a whole or in parts), including fans, lighting bulbs, electrical earthenwares, porcelain and all other instruments, apparatus, appliances, accessories and component parts, the use of which cannot be had except with the application of electrical energy. This entry was substituted for the original entry by Madras Act 15 of 1964, which came into force on 1st September, 1964. Under the entry, as it originally stood, the word "machinery" did not find a place. Though the entry itself is rearranged, it did not make any difference on the scope of the entry itself. The contention of the learned counsel for the assessees is that, in the context in which the word "machinery" is used in entry 41, it should be understood as machinery of the same nature as electrical goods and any other machinery which could not be characterised as electrical goods would not fall within entry 41. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader relied on this word "machinery" and said, whether the machinery is run with the use of electrical power or not, if it is a machinery, it will come within item 41. The learned Additional Government Pleader in this connection also relied on the provision, as it stood originally and after its amendment introduced by Madras Act 15 of 1964. A similar question came up for consideration in the decision reported in Textool Company Limited v. State of Madras In that case, the assessee was carrying on business in the manufacture of textile machinery along with other items. In respect of the sales of textile machinery the assessee was contending that it was liable to pay at the ordinary rate of 2 per cent. In respect of the sales of textile machinery the assessee was contending that it was liable to pay at the ordinary rate of 2 per cent. as sales of general goods and that it was not liable to pay sales tax at single point on the ground that they are electrical goods. This decision was with reference to the assessment year 1964-65, subsequent to the substitution of original entry 41 by the new entry by Madras Act 15 of 1964. In that case also, the State relied on the interposition of the word "machinery" after the words "electrical goods" in the entry. Ramakrishnan, J., held that the word "machinery" after the amendment of entry 41 would take its sense and scope from the term "electrical goods" that precedes it and several items like fans and other goods, the use of which cannot be had without the use of electricity which follow it and, therefore, the same requirement of machinery being electrical goods as laid down in William Jacks and Co. Ltd. v. State of Madras will continue to apply even after the amendment. It may be mentioned that in William Jacks' case a Division Bench of this Court held that lathe even though driven by electrical energy will not come within the scope of the expression "electrical goods". The more apposite decision, which has laid down the test whether an item will fall under entry 41, is the decision reported in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Ravi Auto Stores There, the learned Judges held that, in order to attract item 41, "intrinsically" the goods in question must be electrical goods and, secondly, their use cannot be had without electrical energy. Merely because an article cannot be used without electricity, it may not be decisive. It is necessary that, apart from that fact, the article, by its very nature, answers the description of "electrical goods". With respect, we are in entire agreement with the test laid down by the Bench. If we apply this test, then surely the goods in the instant case would not fall under item 41. Accordingly, it is liable to be taxed under the general provisions as any other goods at 3 per cent. and not at single point at 9 per cent. as found by the Board. If we apply this test, then surely the goods in the instant case would not fall under item 41. Accordingly, it is liable to be taxed under the general provisions as any other goods at 3 per cent. and not at single point at 9 per cent. as found by the Board. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed and the Board is directed to revise the rate of assessment as per the order of this Court. No costs.Appeal partly allowed.