JUDGMENT Roy, J. There is no statutory definition of "Computer". Thus, in terms of the observations in the case of (1) State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Kores (India) Limited, (1977) 39 STC 8 , to the effect that the word which is not defined in an enactment has to be understood in its popular and commercial sense with reference to the context in which it occurs, in this appeal from Original Order, which is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 14th July, 1980, passed by S.C. Deb, J in Civil Revision Case No. 7418 (W) of 1972 and where the main point for consideration would be, whether "Computer", which according to Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary (Unabridged Second Edition) means, a person who computes or a device used for computing, an electronic machine, which by means of stored instructions and informations, performs rapid, often complex calculations or complies, co-relates and selects data or a calculator, electronic calculating machine according to concise Oxford Dictionary (1974 Edition) an automatic electronic machine that performs calculations, a Computer is capable of accepting data, performing operations according to instructions (programmes) and providing result of the operation. A so-called digital computer operates with numbers expressed directly as digits and counts discretely. It is contrasted with the analogue computer, which operates on data represented by variable physical quantities, such as voltages and measures continuously (operations are said to be analogous to the quantities represented), in terms of the New Encyclopaedia Britennica (1970 Edn) and a device that receives, process and presents informations, according to Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology, is a machine or electrical apparatus, the more so when we feel that Computers are used or expressed to be used in such popular sense, as would appear from the meanings as given by the respective Dictionaries. It should be noted that the same view as in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. It should be noted that the same view as in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Kores (India) Limited (Supra), was also taken in the case of (2) Commissioner of Income-Tax West Bengal, Calcutta v. Benoy Kumar Saha Roy, AIR 1957 SC 768 , particularly when, in that case, it has been specifically observed that when the terms "agriculture" and "agricultural purpose", used in the definition of "agricultural income" in section 2(1), have not been defined in the Income-Tax Act, the Court must necessarily fall back upon the general sence, in which they have been understood in common parlance. It should also be noted that the appellant before us was substituted in place of the original writ petitioner M/s. Assam Oil Company Limited, by an order dated 29th April, 1982. 2. The learned Trial Judge, by his determination as impeached, on consideration of the dictionary meaning of Computer and machine, held and observed the same to be an electronic calculating machine or an apparatus and as such, held that the same would come within the purview of Item No. 72(b) and not Item No. 73 of the First Schedule of Import Tariff (hereinafter referred to as the said Tariff). It would be convenient, if we set-out now those items of the said Tariff, as it was contended by the writ petitioners that Computer should fall under Tariff Item No. 72(b) whereas the Respondents in the Rule who are appellants before us, claimed that computers should fall or come under Tariff Item No. 73. Item No. 72(b): Machinery namely such articles as are not otherwise specified; (b) Machine and sets of machines to be worked by electric, steam, water, fire or other power, not being manual or animal labour, or which before being brought into use, require to be fixed with reference to other moving parts. Item No. 73: Electrical instruments, apparatus and appliances, not otherwise specified (excluding telegraphic and telephonic) and part thereof not otherwise specified, and the learned Trial Judge, apart from holding as above has a further held that Tariff Item No. 73 is a residual provision and on such finding as above, made the Rule absolute. 3. Item No. 73: Electrical instruments, apparatus and appliances, not otherwise specified (excluding telegraphic and telephonic) and part thereof not otherwise specified, and the learned Trial Judge, apart from holding as above has a further held that Tariff Item No. 73 is a residual provision and on such finding as above, made the Rule absolute. 3. It was the case of the writ petitioners that they had imported a consignment of Computer system in July, 1968, through the Port of Calcutta and had filed Bill of Entry to the Calcutta Customs (Machinery Group), for assessment, wherein they had declared the concerned goods as "Electrical appliances n.o.s." and showed the assessable value of the concerned goods as Rs. 7,73,056.42 P. and thereafter, on 5th July, 1968 they had also filed necessary document for clearance of the consignment of computer, out of the Customs charge and had declared the goods, inter alia, as "Electrical appliances n.o.s." as mentioned above. It was also their case that the claim application, they contended that correct assessment of the subject goods should be under Item No. 72(b) of the said Tariff at 27½ per cent ad valorem and as such, they had claimed the refund of consequential difference in duty amounting to Rs. 1,74,050/-. It was the further case of the writ petitioners that the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta by his order dated 13th June, 1969, directed the consignments to be assessed to duty under Tariff Item No. 73 and on such, the subject goods were assessed at 50% as Electrical appliances. 4. Against such determination the writ petitioners claimed re-assessment of the subject goods viz., the Computer system under Item No. 72(b) of the said Tariff at 27½ per cent and the Assistant Collector concerned, by his order as mentioned above, on examination of the claim, held that the Computer system comprising of separate individual and independent articles were to be assessed on merits and since those articles were Electrical appliances, they had been correctly assessed under Item No. 73 as mentioned above. Against such determination, on or about 12th September, 1969, the writ petitioners preferred an appeal under section 129 of the Customs Act, before the Appellant Collector of Customs, who by his order as in Annexure 'B' to the writ petition held that the Computer system should be correctly assessable under Item No. 72(b) of the said Tariff and accordingly directed consequential refund of duty to the writ petitioners. On a reference to that order, it would appear that the Appellate Collector of Customs concerned, held, inter alia, that the Computer system as imported, comprised a set of machines, which have got to be operated together to process, record and report on the data fed into it and one without the other was useless. Apart from that, it has also been recorded in that order that the concerned machine was far superior to the statistical machines operated in conjunction with punch card equipment, which fall under 84.53 of the B.T.N. and further held, that punch card equipment was also used as a part of the Computer system and the same had been ordered to be assessable under Item No. 72(b) of the said Tariff, if operated by over ½ H.P. On the basis of such order, the Appellate Collector of Customs appraising Refund Section an order for the refund of Rs. 1,74,050.20 P. to the writ petitioners. 5. Thereafter, on or about 29th January, 1971, the writ petitioners received a notice from the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Appellant No. 1, to show-cause, why the order made by the Appellate Collector of Customs as mentioned above, should not be annulled under section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. Against such notice, on or about 8th February, 1971, the writ petitioners made a representation before the said Appellant No. 1, contending, inter alia, that the Computer system and its integral parts were assessable under Item Nos. 72(b) and 73(3) respectively and not under Item No. 73 of the said Tariff. In fact, the writ petitioners made the following categorical submissions :- (a) The system consist of 'Card Punch', 'Verifier', 'Sorter' 'Collator', 'Electronic', 'Calculator', 'Processor', 'Printer' and 'Console Typewriter'. All these units are arranged in an air-conditional room and interconnected with underground cables. (b) These units which are machines or sets of units are operated by electric motor of ½ horse power, or more. All these units are arranged in an air-conditional room and interconnected with underground cables. (b) These units which are machines or sets of units are operated by electric motor of ½ horse power, or more. None of these can work independently without being connected to the Processor and the Processor cannot operate meaning-full without being connected to other units. Although these machines and units have individual identify they can work only as a composite system. (c) C.B.R. in their Rulling No. 36(9) - Cus.-III/55 of 27th January, 1955 has ruled that Punch Card equipment consisting of Card Punch, Verifiers, Sorters, Card Reproducers, Collators, etc. is assessable under Item No. 72(b) I.C.T. (d)(1) The Computer system comprises all the units mentioned in the C.B.R. rulling quoted in 2(c) above and in addition Line Printers and Console Typewriter. (e) Console Typewriter is not and cannot be used as an ordinary typewriter. It is specially manufactured for the computer and used by the operator to communicate to the various machines about the running of the programme. It may safely be called a Control Desk. In case any machine is not set or does not function properly a message to that effect is typed back automatically by this typewriter, apart from explaining the work of the Computer system as below :- "information is punched on the cards from the documents by Punching machine. The punchings were verified by the 'Verifier'. These punched and verified cards are processed through Collating, Reproducing and Sorting machines and fed inside the Card Reader No. 2102/872 which reads the information punched in the cards and sends to Central Processor No. 1901/2/430 through internally connecting cable for calculation. After calculation, the calculated data (not in cards) goes either to Card Punch No. 1920/2/705 or record the data in punched card for future use or to the Line Printer No. 2401/2/319 for directly printing the data on the paper already provided in the Printer. The Console Typewriter No. P. 1013, as stated in 2(d)(2) above, is used by the Operator to communicate the machines about the running of the programmes. The Console Typewriter No. P. 1013, as stated in 2(d)(2) above, is used by the Operator to communicate the machines about the running of the programmes. The Computer inputs the Punched Cards inside the machine for data calculation and outputs the data either in punched card from or in a printed form as desired by the Operator." M/s. Assam Oil Company also mentioned that :- (a) The Computer system they imported has in fact a punched card data processing machine covered by the C.B.R. rulling and as such assessable under Item No. 72(b) I.C.T. (b) From technical considerations the Computer system operates on the basis of electrical, electronic and mechanical principles and conforms to the terms" Machinery as defined under Item No. 72(b) I.C.T. which embraces within its ambit machinery and sets of machine required for a specific purpose. In keeping with the concept of machinery enunciated in the Machinery Committee Report indicated in the Indian Customs Tariff Guide and Item 72(b) I.C.T. a machine can be defined as a contrivance in which the action of several moving parts is combined with the use of force rated in House Power to obtain a mechanical force for a specific purpose. The Computer system conforms to this definition. (c) The Officers from Calcutta Customs had seen the operation of a similar machine in Calcutta and it was only then that re-assessment of the consignment under Item 72(b) I.C.T. was considered. If desired agreement can be made with International Computers (India) Pvt. Ltd. to demonstrate the working of a similar machine in Delhi. (d) In the past the Computer system used to be assessed under 72(b) I.C.T. by Calcutta Customs and a triplicate copy of B/E No. 1.785 of 18.10.66 and the relative invoices covering a similar consignment imported by M/S. International Computers and Tabulators (India) Pvt. Ltd. in 1966 was produced. The writ petitioners further asked for personal hearing and such hearing was given to them. The writ petitioners further asked for personal hearing and such hearing was given to them. On consideration of their contention and representations as above, the writ petitioners claimed that the Appellant No. 1 on 18th January, 1972, made an order, whereby in exercise of his powers conferred under section 131(3) read with section 131(5) of the Customs Act, he annulled the order as made by Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta on the basis of the holding that the Computer system is to be treated as a whole and viewed thus is an integral unit based on complex electronics system and the heart of the computer system is the Central processor which consists of thousands of pre-determined circuits which are actuated by the instructions fed inter the card read punch by the human programmer either through printed punched cards or pre-punched tapes. The other units such as the punch card, equipment printer, sorter, verifier, etc. are ancillary equipments for carrying out the necessary preliminary or final operations. The work of computing, as such, is done by the Central processor which has no moving parts. The unit is nothing but a complex electronic brain which cannot be classified as machinery in the Tariff sence. Item No. 73 I.C.T. is the only item which would cover this type of electronic appliance. The ancillary units many of which do incorporate motors which may well be over one quarter brake horse power are not also machinery in this sense but only Electrical appliances to be used alongwith the central processor. Treated as a whole these alongwith the central processor together would be correctly classifiable under Item No. 73 I.C.T. In has been stated that immediately after that order a demand for Rs. 1,74,050.20 P. was issued to the writ petitioners by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Appraising Refund Section and in terms of such demands they have on 18/19th February, 1972, deposited the said amount in the Customs, House and thereafter, obtained the Rule, which was made absolute by the learned Trial Judge and which order is under appeal. Thus, the order as made by the Appellant No. 1 was on the basis of the holding that the Computer system imported by the writ petitioners should be re-assessed under Item No. 75 of the said Tariff. 6. In this appeal before us, Mr. Thus, the order as made by the Appellant No. 1 was on the basis of the holding that the Computer system imported by the writ petitioners should be re-assessed under Item No. 75 of the said Tariff. 6. In this appeal before us, Mr. Shiblal Bose claimed and contended on the basis of the meaning of 'Computer' as indicated above and so also the meaning of "Machine", which according to Chamber's Dictionary any artificial means or contrivance, any instrument for the conversion of motion, an engine, a vehicle. A structure or built up fabric of any kind specially the himan or animal frame, a vehicle operated mechanically, a structure consisting of frame work and of various fixed and moving parts for doing some kind of work and an assemblage of parts that transfer force, motion and energy one to another in a pre-determined manner. Any apparatus for the application or modification of force to a specific purpose, in terms of Encyclopaedia Britennica or a structure of any kind material or immaterial a fabric, an apparatus, appliances, instrument, an apparatus for applying mechanical power, consisting a number of parts each having a definite function. A combination of parts moving mechanically as contracted with a being acting voluntarily, in terms of Oxford Dictionary, a Computer should not be deemed to be a machine. He also submitted that when instrument, according to Chamber's Dictionary, is a tool or utensil, a contrivance for producing musical sounds one who or that which is made a means and according to Oxford Dictionary such terms would mean a thing used in performing an action, tool, implement specially for delicate or scientific work, contrivance for producing musical sounds by vibration of strings and would mean a thing by means of which something is done, mean and tool or implement specially, one used for delicate work or for scientific or aristic purposes, any of various devices for producing musical sounds as a pieano, violin etc. according to Webster's, so computer can also be brought with in such meaning of instrument. according to Webster's, so computer can also be brought with in such meaning of instrument. It should be noted here that Encyclopaedia Britennica records an instrument to be one which can be used as a means to all end, hence a mechanical contrivance, implement or tool, the word is more particularly applied to the implements of the applied science in mathematics, surgery or surveying etc., while those or the handicrafts are generally known as tools. It has also been recorded that the specific use or the terms is for the various contrivances used to produce musical sounds. 7. Apart from the above, Mr. Bose further claimed and contended that a Computer should not be deemed to be as electrical apparatus which according to Chamber Dictionary means things as prepared or provided material such set of instruments, tools, natural organs and the said terms according to Webster's means the instruments, materials, fools needed for specific use, experiment, it has also been mentioned there that any set of standards or values for judging, measuring or testing or any complex devices or machines would be apparatus. Apparatus, according to Oxford Dictionary would be things collectively in which preparation consists and by which its processes are maintained, equipments, materials machinery apart from meaning mechanical requisites for scientific experiment or investigations or the organs by which natural processes are carried on and materials for the Critical study of document. 8. It was Mr. Bose's specific and only submissions that on the basis of the tests as mentioned hereinbefore, which could be derived from the meanings attributed by different dictionaries, a Computer would certainly come within Item No. 73 of the said Tariff and as such the order dated 18th January, 1972, as made by the Appellant No. 1, annulling the order in appeal, as passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta, in exercise of powers conferred under section 131(3) read with section 131(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 and holding thereby that the Computer system imported by the writ petitioners under the cover of Bill of Entry dated 5th June, 1968, to be re-assessed under Item No. 73 of the said Tariff, was due, proper, legal and justified. The reasons for such holding in appeal by the Appellant No. 1 have already been quoted hereinbefore. The reasons for such holding in appeal by the Appellant No. 1 have already been quoted hereinbefore. It should be noted that in fact, apart from the above and in addition in his claim that the concerned order by the Appellant No. 1, was a reasoned one and there was ample justification in holding that Computer is an apparatus. Mr. Bose had not advanced any other submission. 9. Dr. Pal, in reply pointed out that a Computer system consists of the basic parts like (a) Input section, (b) Processing section (normally known as Central) Processor and (c) Output section. He also stated that the input units usually are (i) Console typewriter, (ii) Card Reader, (iii) Paper Tape Reader, (iv) Magnetic Tape Units and (v) Magnetic Tape Disc File Units and according to him the processing unit is the Central Processor with the core store. The input units as mentioned hereinbefore, according to Mr. Pal, are integrated parts. He further pointed out that the Output units are (a) Console Typewriter, (b) Paper Tape Punch and (c) Line Printer. It was submitted by him that for Computer system to operate, it is an absolutely essential and necessary that at least one unit of each type as mentioned above, must be connected together and it is useless to have one without the other. He pointed out that the Central Processor cannot work independently and provide any meaningful results without the Input/Output Units; neither can those units work independently and provide any meaningful results without the help of the other nor the units can work independently by themselves (without being connected to the Central Processor). In fact, it was submitted by Dr. Pal, that all the three units from an essential and integral part of the Computer system and one without the Centrals other is of no use. He pointed out that the Central Processor by itself without. Input/Output Units is of no use and has no importance to the user and the said Processor, independently of other units, has no device by which it can operate or function. According to Dr. Pal, it is not correct to say that "heart" of the Computer system or the "brain" of the same is the Central Processor. Input/Output Units is of no use and has no importance to the user and the said Processor, independently of other units, has no device by which it can operate or function. According to Dr. Pal, it is not correct to say that "heart" of the Computer system or the "brain" of the same is the Central Processor. He submitted that Input and Output Units have their own functions and from an integral and essential parts of the composite machine called the Computer system and all the three units have equal importance as essential parts of the composite machine and none can be given extra importance than the other. 10. It was thus submitted by Dr. Pal, that Computer system comprising of Input Unit, Output Unit and the Processor Unit, forms one composite maching having a number of moving parts and the Input and Output Units are entirely dependent on moving parts for their functioning and all of them have electrical motors of 1/4 H.P. and over. It was also pointed out by him that the Central Processor incorporates among other things, a cooling fan which keeps the Central Processor at a specified temperature and the said fan is a moving part and if the same is not incorporated in the Central Processor, the same would not function. He further pointed that the Central Processor also, of course, consists of large number of relays and switch with moving parts, which do operates by electric power and the work of the Computer system was stated by Dr. Pal to be that the information is punching on the cards from the documents by punching machine. The punching are verified by the "Verifier". These Punched 2nd verified cards are processed through Collating, Reproducing and Sorting machines and inside the Card Reader No. 2101/872, which reads the information punched in the cards and sends to Central Processor No. 1901/2/430 through internally connecting cable for calculation. After calculation, the calculated data (not in cards) goes either to Card Punch No. 1920/2/705 to record the data in punched card for further use or to the Line Printer No. 2401/2/519 for directly printing the data on the paper already provided in the Printer. The Console Typewriter No. F. 1013, as stated in 2(d)(2) above, is used by the Operator to communicate the machine about the running of the programmes. The Console Typewriter No. F. 1013, as stated in 2(d)(2) above, is used by the Operator to communicate the machine about the running of the programmes. The Computer inputs the punched cards inside the machine for data calculation and Outputs the date either in punched card from or in a printed from as desired by the Operator. It will appear from the facts stated above that the Computer system imported by the petitioner is, in fact, a Punched Card data Processing Machine. The petitioners have stated that by a Notification No. 36(9)-Cus.-III/55 dated 27.1.65 Punch Card equipments are assessable to duty under Item No. 72(b) or 72(6) of the I.C.T. according to the power required for the operation. The Computer system imported by the petitioner being, in fact, a punch card to Processing Machine is thus assessable under Item No. 72(b) of the I.C.T. in view of the said Notification. 11. It was further submitted by Dr. Pal that from technical consideration also, the Computer system operates on the basis of electrical, electronic and mechanical principles and conforms of the terms "Machinery" within the meaning of Item No. 72(b) of the said Tariff. It was his submission that in keeping with the concept of the machinery as enunciated by the Machinery Committees Report indicated in the Indian Customs Tariff Guide as used in Item No. 72(b) of the said Tariff, a machine can be defined as a contrivance in which the action of several moving parts is combined with the use of force rated in Horse Power to obtain a mechanical force for a specific purpose. For the purpose of having an idea is to what a machinery is, the observations in the case of (3) Corporation of Calcutta v. Cossipore and Chitpore Municipality, XLVIII IA 435 may be looked into and considered. In that case the appellant Corporation owned a reservior and pumps for the supply of wager to Calcutta. They erected a large tank (referred to as a balancing tank), supported on columns so as to give it elevation. This tank could be filled by pumping from the reservior and when desired water could be released from it into the main supply pipes nearer Calcutta than the reservior. They erected a large tank (referred to as a balancing tank), supported on columns so as to give it elevation. This tank could be filled by pumping from the reservior and when desired water could be released from it into the main supply pipes nearer Calcutta than the reservior. The water so released flowed through the pipe by force of gravity; it not only increased the supply by its own volume, but also accelerated the velocity of the whole body of water passing through the supply pipe. The tank enabled the appellant to increase the supply during part of the day when the hourly consumption exceeded the capacity of the reservior and pumps and on such it has been held that the balancing tank was not "machinery" within the meaning of the section above referred to. It should also be noted that such view has also been accepted in the case of (4) Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras v. Mir Mohammad Ali, 1964 (53) ITR 165. In that case it would appear that during the accounting year ending March 31, 1950, the assessee, a transport operator, replaced the petrol engines in two of his buses by diesel engines, incurring an expenditure of Rs. 18,544/-. The question was whether in addition to normal depreciation the assessee was entitled to the extra depreciation allowances under the second paragraph of clause (vi) and clause (via) of section 10(2) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 and on such facts by the majority judgment it has also been observed as under:- (i) That the same meaning ought to be given to the word "machinery" in all the clauses, namely, clauses (iv),(v),(vi) and (via), of section 10(2) of the Income-Tax Act. If a machine was machinery for the purpose of giving an allowance in respect of insurance or for repairs or in respect of normal depreciation, or for the purpose of the fixed paragraph of clause (vi), it was also machinery for the purposes of the second paragraph of clause (vi) and clause (via). If a machine was machinery for the purpose of giving an allowance in respect of insurance or for repairs or in respect of normal depreciation, or for the purpose of the fixed paragraph of clause (vi), it was also machinery for the purposes of the second paragraph of clause (vi) and clause (via). (ii) That the definition of "machinery" adopted by the Privy Council in Corporation of Calcutta v. Chairman Cossipore and Chitpore Municipality, 1932 ILR 49 Cal 190, namely, "machinery means some mechanical contrivances which by themselves or in combination with one or more contrivances by joint movement and interdependent operation of their respective parts generate power of evoke, modify, apply or direct natural forces with the object in each case of effecting so definite and specific a result", although not given in a tax case, should prevail under the Income-Tax Act also, as the word "machinery" was an ordinary and not a technical word. According to this definition a diesel engine was clearly machinery. (iii) That the expression "installed" in the second paragraph of clause (vi) and clause (via) did not necessarily mean fixed in position but was also was in the sense of "induct" or "introduce" or "placing an apparatus in position for service or use". When an engine was fixed in a vehicle it was instilled within the meaning of the expression in clauses (vi) and (via) of section 10(2). (iv) That, therefore, the assessed was entitled to deduction of the extra depreciation allowances under the second paragraph of clause (vi) and clause (via) of section 10(2). 12. Thus, on the basis of the ratio of the decision as mentioned above, it would appear that it has been observed that a diesel engine is a machine. On the analogy of those tests, Dr. Pal submitted, since a Computer system works with the help of motor of 1/4 H.P. or more so a Computer should be deemed or treated to be a machine or sets of machines, worked by electric or other power not being manual or animal labour or which before being brought into use requires to be fixed with reference to other moving parts and according to him the Appellant No. 1, while making his determination, failed to appreciate those facts or the real character of the working of a Computer. 13. While submitting as above, Dr. 13. While submitting as above, Dr. Pal also made a specific reference to the case of (5) Tata Sons Limited v. Union of India & Ors., 1982 ELT 53 (Bom), where a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court on consideration of the different aspects, has observed that Computer system/Data processing machines are not electrical apparatus. In fact, it has been observed that it would be futile to suggest that computer machines which in modern times were used for a large number of activities and did extremely complicated work with accuracy and speed were not machines falling under Item No. 72(b) or 72(3) of the Indian Tariff Act. The mere fact that the computer imported by the petitioners is a fully automatic electrical equipment would not necessarily attract the duty under Item No. 73 because even if it is an electrical device based on electricity and electronics, it would not cease to be a machine. The contention that the results given by the computers are to be ignored on the ground that it produces no commodity cannot be accepted because it would be impossible to imagine that unless concrete commodity is produced the instrument cannot be described as a "machine". The said learned Judge, while dealing with the question whether Computer is machine, has observed that the computer is a comprehensive expression which consists of different units like central processing unit, disk file, disk back drivers etc. which are not capable of working except in conjunction with others. Since, the entire computer system works as an integrated unit as a machine, therefore, it cannot be said that the central processing unit as a machine, therefore, it cannot be said that the central processing unit was working independently without other ancillary parts and will not fall within the expression machine and has categorically observed that the Computer is a machine and not an electrical appliance. He has also observed that under Entry No. 84.53 of the B.T.N. data processing machines are described as digital analogous or hybrid according to the method of processing the data and includes peripheral units, designed to increase the capacity of the system and the unit is to be regarded as being a part of the complete digital data processing system. He has also observed that under Entry No. 84.53 of the B.T.N. data processing machines are described as digital analogous or hybrid according to the method of processing the data and includes peripheral units, designed to increase the capacity of the system and the unit is to be regarded as being a part of the complete digital data processing system. Therefore, it is obvious that computers are also treated as "machines" under B.T.N. and has ultimately held that since the computer is "machine", the duty could be levied only under Item No. 72, therefore, it would not be appropriate to stretch its meaning so as to attract its duty under Item No. 73 under the Heading "Electrical apparatus". 14. Before making our observations on the issue as involved, we should also keep it on record that in the affidavit-in-opposition dated 21st February, 1974, which was filed through Shri S.P.S. Pundir, the answering Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have not really answered appropriately, the points as raised in the petition. On the basis of the materials as disclosed hereinbefore and so also the workings of the Computer system and the character of the same as indicated hereinbefore, we agree with the determinations of the Bombay High Court and hold that, as the entire Computer system, works as an integrated unit as a machine, therefore it cannot be observed that the Central Processing Unit works independently and without other ancillary parts, and as such will not fall within the expression "machine" the more so when Computer is included in Chapter 84 and not Chapter 85 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It is obvious that they are machines and not electrical appliances. There is also no doubt that in terms of the treatment under the B.T.N. as indicated and pointed out in the above Bombay decision, Computers are also treated as "Machines". Such being the position, there is no other way but to hold, that because the Computers machines, the duty on them could be levied only under Item No. 72(b) of the said Tariff and not under Item No. 73 of the same, under the heading "Electrical apparatus". 15. So, in short, we find that Computers are machines and are not electrical apparatus. 15. So, in short, we find that Computers are machines and are not electrical apparatus. We also observe that the residuary Item No. 73 of the said Tariff would not be applicable in this case, as Computers, because of their character and composition, would come within Item No. 72(b) of the said Tariff. 16. We further hold that on the basis of the determinations in the case of (6) Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City-I v. I.B.M. World Trade Corporation, 130 ITR 739, to which reference was also made by Dr. Pal and on the basis of the reasonings of that case on the question whether Data Processing Machines are office "appliances" and are entitled to development rebate, the Computers are "machines" and not "appliances" or "apparatus". On the basis of the meaning of Computers as indicated hereinbefore, we are also of the view that a Computer cannot be describe as "electrical appliances" because the same is not an article of domestic use. We think on the basis of the judicial determinations, Tariff definitions and since the Customs Authorities have themselves treated "Computer" as 'machines' the decision of the Appellant No. 1 as in issue before us, hold a Computer is liable to duty under Item No. 73 of the said Tariff, was incorrect. Above being our findings and observations, we uphold the decision of the learned Trial Judge and accordingly, dismiss this appeal. There will be no order as to costs. Stay of the order, as prayed for, is refused. Sen Gupta, J. : I agree.