JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by A. P. RAVANI, J. - This reference is under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, at the instance of the dealer. As stated at the Bar the opponent-dealer is a partnership firm. 2. The dealer manufactured certain machines, and on September 19, 1978, applied for determination of the sales tax payable on the machines in question. The machines are described as follows : (1) Model 2030 chain sharpener (2) Model 2031 chain saw (3) Model 2032 one man chain saw The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax on August 29, 1979, determined that item Nos. 2 and 3 were the machinery used in the manufacture of goods and, therefore, falling in entry 16(1) of Schedule II, Part A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). However, as far as model 2030 chain saw sharpener is concerned it was found that the same was not covered by entry 16(1) of Schedule II, Part A to the Act and, therefore, it was falling under entry 13 of Schedule III to the Act (i.e., residuary entry). The opponent-dealer carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. As per its judgment dated August 27, 1981 the Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax was correct and the article in question was correctly held to be falling in entry 13 of Schedule III to the Act and not within entry 16(1) of Schedule II, Part A to the Act. 3. The assessee submitted application for making reference to this Court. The Tribunal, as per its order dated January 11, 1983, referred the following question to this Court for opinion : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sale of Model 2030 chain sharpener was covered by entry 13 of Schedule III appended to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the said chain sharpener was not covered by entry 16(1) of Schedule II, Part A appended to the said Act ? Our answer to the aforesaid question is in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reasons for our answer are as follows : 4. Our answer to the aforesaid question is in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reasons for our answer are as follows : 4. Entry 16(1) of Schedule II, Part A to the Act as it stood at the relevant time read as follows : ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Sr. No. Description of goods Rate of Rate of sales tax purchase tax ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 16(1). Machinery used in the Four paise Four paise manufacture of goods in the rupee. in the rupee. excluding machinery specified in any other entry in this or any other Schedule. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The article in question has been described in the application for determination of tax as follows : "Model No. 2030 : is chain sharpener meant for sharpening the chain for the chain saw machine and one motor and grinding wheel is fitted and by which the teeth of the wood cutting chain are sharpened." In the literature pertaining to the article it is stated as follows : "The proper care for the chains will ensure you reap the full advantage of sharpex chains through their life. This applies primarily to sharpening and you will always saw faster and better, with a correctly sharpening chain. For sharpening the chain cutter angles exactly, the chain sharpener is absolutely necessary." The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the machine model 2030 was a chain sharpener from the description given in the determination application. It was found that it was a machine only meant for sharpening the chain. It was not directly used for cutting the wood into different sizes. It was found that it was a machine only meant for sharpening the chain. It was not directly used for cutting the wood into different sizes. The Tribunal summed up its finding in the following words : "The sum and substance of the typed sheet is to show that the sharpening of teeth and maintaining the teeth guage between the two teeth is absolutely necessary for different working of chain saw; so whenever a tooth of chain saw becomes blunt or is blunt, it has to be sharpened and such sharpening along with maintenance of its angle and the teeth guage can be done by chain sharpener machine .............." "Cutting of wood is done by the other two machines in respect of which the determination was made by the learned Deputy Commissioner." Ultimately the Tribunal held : "Chain saw sharpener is machine used for sharpening teeth and it has been rightly described as service machinery and not machinery used in the manufacture of goods." In view of the aforesaid finding of fact the Tribunal held that the article was not falling in entry 16(1) of Schedule II, Part A to the Act and confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. 5. Learned counsel for the dealer submitted that the Tribunal has not correctly followed the principles laid down by this High Court in the case of Industrial Machinery Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, reported in [1965] 16 STC 380 and in the case of State of Gujarat v. Gujarat Engineering Company, reported in [1974] 33 STC 302. In the case of Industrial Machinery Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. [1965] 16 STC 380 (Guj) it was the case of the dealer that the humidifier used by the cotton textile mills in order to maintain certain level of humidity for the purpose of increasing the strength of yarn was machinery used in the manufacture of cloth. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Tribunal had negatived this contention. This High Court held that humidifiers were machinery used in the manufacture of cloth. Learned counsel for the dealer submits that on the basis of the aforesaid decision, the article in question, i.e., model 2030 chain sharpener, should also be held to be a machinery used in the manufacture of wood of different sizes. 6. This High Court held that humidifiers were machinery used in the manufacture of cloth. Learned counsel for the dealer submits that on the basis of the aforesaid decision, the article in question, i.e., model 2030 chain sharpener, should also be held to be a machinery used in the manufacture of wood of different sizes. 6. The contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the very principle propounded by the Division Bench of this High Court would not apply to the facts of the case. In the case of Industrial Machinery Manufacturers [1965] 16 STC 380, the Division Bench posed the question as follows : "What we must, therefore, proceed to consider is whether humidifiers are machinery used in the manufacture of cloth." It was contended that only the machinery which was being used in the actual process of manufacture of cloth should be covered within the phrase "machinery used in the manufacture of cloth". While negativing this contention the Division Bench of this High Court has observed as follows : "Manufacture of goods means the process of converting raw materials into finished goods and whatever machinery is required for converting raw materials into finished goods would be machinery used in the manufacturer of such goods. Every item of machinery which has a use in the manufacture of finished goods, which plays some role in the process of manufacture of finished goods and without which manufacture of finished goods would not be possible would be machinery used in the manufacture of such goods. Such machinery would be an essential and integral part of the plant which manufactures finished goods and would certainly satisfy the description that it is machinery used in the manufacture of finished goods." Applying the aforesaid test it was held that the humidifiers which keep the humidity in a particular part of the mill premises at a particular level which increased the strength of yarn and avoid breakage of yarn was essential part of the machinery of textile industry. In the instant case the article in question is not a machinery used for sawing the wood or timber as the case may be. In the instant case the article in question is not a machinery used for sawing the wood or timber as the case may be. Model 2030 chain sharpener is an article designed to sharpen chain saw, which is a spare part - may be most important spare part - of other two machines, i.e., models 2031 and 2032 which are used for cutting the wood or timber as the case may be. Without the help of or even without running or operating the article in question, i.e., model 2030, the manufacturing process can be carried on and be completed. Therefore, the principle laid down in the case of Industrial Machinery Manufacturers [1965] 16 STC 380 on the contrary helps the Revenue rather than the assessee. 7. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Gujarat Engineering Company, reported in [1974] 33 STC 302, the question arose as regards the meaning to the word "used" occurring in entry No. 15 which read as follows : "15. Machinery used in the manufacture of goods, and spare parts and accessories thereof, but not machinery and spare parts and accessories thereof specified in any other entry in this or any other Schedule." In respect of oil engines it was contended on behalf of the Revenue that the actual user of the machinery should be taken into consideration. On the other hand the assessee contended that not only the actual user, but if the machinery could be used for manufacturing of goods, it should be considered sufficient to attract the tax. In short the question for determination before the court was : "Is it the actual user which determine the entry or all possible uses to which the machinery could be put to, that would determine the correct entry ?" The court answered the question by saying that there was no warrant to equate the word "use" in entry No. 15 with the "actual use". In our opinion this decision does not throw any light whatsoever on the question at issue in this reference. 8. Learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in distinguishing the following two Supreme Court decisions which were relied upon on behalf of the assessee : (1) Indian Copper Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar [1965] 16 STC 259. (2) J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. 8. Learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in distinguishing the following two Supreme Court decisions which were relied upon on behalf of the assessee : (1) Indian Copper Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar [1965] 16 STC 259. (2) J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur [1965] 16 STC 563. In the aforesaid two decisions the question as regards inclusion/exclusion of certain goods in the certificate to be issued by the appropriate officer under the relevant provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, had arisen. In that context the Supreme Court interpreted the expression "in the manufacture of goods" occurring in section 8(3)(b) of the Act and in rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter "the Rules"). The Tribunal, on our opinion, rightly distinguished the aforesaid decisions. 9. In the case of Indian Copper Corporation Ltd. [1965] 16 STC 259, the phrase "goods intended for use in the manufacturing or processing of goods for sale" occurring in section 8(3)(b) and in rule 13 of the Rules camp up for consideration before the Supreme Court. The appropriate sales tax authority had not included the vehicles which were used in removal of processed goods from the factory to the place of storage. The Supreme Court held that such goods were also required to be included, because they were intended for use in the manufacturing or processing of the goods. In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. [1965] 16 STC 563, the words "in the manufacture of goods" were interpreted in the context of the question as to whether designing was a part of manufacturing process of cloth. In that context the Supreme Court held that the expression "in the manufacture of goods" should normally encompass the entire process carried on by the dealer of converting raw materials into finished goods. The Tribunal rightly held that in both the cases the context in which the observations were made by the Supreme Court were quite different and the decisions were based on the facts of the case. In our opinion also the Tribunal has committed no error in understanding and explaining the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court. 10. The Tribunal rightly held that in both the cases the context in which the observations were made by the Supreme Court were quite different and the decisions were based on the facts of the case. In our opinion also the Tribunal has committed no error in understanding and explaining the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court. 10. As laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, reported in [1961] 12 STC 286, the words occurring in an entry of a taxing statute must be constructed not in any technical sense but it would be interpreted as understood in common parlance. The words should be understood as they are used every day and must be construed in its popular sense meaning "that sense which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it". Similar view is taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh, reported in [1967] 19 STC 469 (SC); AIR 1967 SC 1454 wherein it is stated that while interpreting taxing statutes the popular meaning and not scientific or technical meaning should be adopted. The same principle is reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Gujarat Woollen Felt Mills, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1548 while dealing with an entry in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 11. If the aforesaid principles are applied to the facts found by the Tribunal it is evident that the assessee itself has held out that model 2030 chain sharpener is meant for sharpening the chain saw. Even in the application submitted for determination, it is not stated that the machine is required for using the same in manufacture, i.e., in cutting woods. The literature which has been referred to by the Tribunal also does not indicate that it is an article which is necessary for use in the machinery. The finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal has been referred to hereinabove. In our opinion the Tribunal has committed no error in arriving at this finding and it has applied the correct principles of law to the facts of the case. 12. We do not agree with the submission that sufficient evidence was not there before the Tribunal for arriving at the aforesaid conclusion. In our opinion the Tribunal has committed no error in arriving at this finding and it has applied the correct principles of law to the facts of the case. 12. We do not agree with the submission that sufficient evidence was not there before the Tribunal for arriving at the aforesaid conclusion. On the basis of the evidence before it the Tribunal has come to the aforesaid conclusion. Sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence is not a question to be gone into by this High Court. If, on the basis of some evidence before it the finding of fact is arrived at, it is not required to be interfered with by this Court. 13. Learned causal for the petitioner-dealer submitted that the machine is usually sold with either of the two other machines and therefore it should be held that this article is an integral part of the other two machines and therefore it is an integral part of the manufacturing process. The submission cannot be accepted in view of the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. This contention was raised before the Tribunal also by the learned counsel for the dealer. After referring to the decision of the High Court in the case of Industrial Machinery Manufacturers [1965] 16 STC 380, the Tribunal has rejected this contention. The Tribunal has observed as follows : "An attempt to bring the chain saw sharpener within the test laid down in the above decision cannot be accepted. Chain saw sharpener is machine used for sharpening teeth and it has been rightly described as service machinery and not machinery used in the manufacture of goods." We are in agreement with the finding arrived at by the Tribunal. 14. The aforesaid discussion made by the Tribunal shows as to how the dealer itself understood its article and as to how the customers are purchasing the same. It is quite possible that a person engaged in the manufacture or cutting of wood or sawing the timber may engage himself only in cutting or sawing of the wood which may be soft. If such soft article is sawn or cut the chain saw may not be required to be sharpened often. In that case model 2030 chain sharpener may not be of any use whatsoever to him. If such soft article is sawn or cut the chain saw may not be required to be sharpened often. In that case model 2030 chain sharpener may not be of any use whatsoever to him. On facts found by the Tribunal it cannot be held that model 2030 chain sharpener is an integral part of the process of manufacture, i.e., cutting or sawing of the wood. 15. Learned causal for the dealer submitted that in a given case the dealer may misuse the provisions by giving wrong description of his article. We do not wish to deal with this contention. If and when a case of such misuse by a dealer is brought to the notice of the appropriate authority or to the notice of this Court, the same will be dealt with in accordance with law and the facts of the case. We do not wish to deal with hypothetical situation. 16. The reference is answered accordingly with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.