JUDGMENT - S.M. DAUD, J. :--- Is fibre-glass wool (FGW or Wool) an electrical domestic applicance or a component/ spare thereof within the meaning of Entry 50 (a) (iv). Schedule H to the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act---hereinafter referred to as the 'entry', 'Schedule' and 'Act' respectively? 2. Octroi is a major source of revenue for the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and that Corporation gets the power to impose it on the entry of articles listed in the Schedule - the entry being for consumption, sale or use in Greater Bombay (see section 192 (1) of the Act). The Schedule divides articles listed therein into nine classes - each class having a heading. Class VIII has the heading "Metals and articles made of metals". Entry 50 consists of a main item titled- "Machinery and their components and spares". The same has two sub-divisions (a) and (b). These sub-divisions are further split into what may be conveniently termed as micro items. Micro item (a) (iv) relates to 'electrical domestic appliances'. 3. Petitioner imports Wool for use as insulating material in refrigerators manufactured by it. The respondent Corporation has been taking recourse to different entries in the Schedule to justify the levy of control upon the import of Wool. In the past it has sought to bring the levy within entries 35, 40 and 58 of the Schedule. From 1982 till the institution of the petition it has collected Rs. 11,35,653.50 ps. 4. Petitioner takes exception to the recoveries made in the past and the continuance thereof. It contends that none of the three entries apply. To the return pleading the applicability of the entry 50 (a)(iv), petitioner denies that Wool can be termed an electrical domestic appliance or a component or spare thereof. Respondents assert the contrary justifying the levy saying that the very object of the import was to use the Wool as a component in the manufacture of refrigerators. 5. In determining the point under consideration we have to remember the decision of the Full Bench in Appeal No. 184 of 1985 pronounced on 14-3-1988 (Monopol Chemicals' case). Respondents assert the contrary justifying the levy saying that the very object of the import was to use the Wool as a component in the manufacture of refrigerators. 5. In determining the point under consideration we have to remember the decision of the Full Bench in Appeal No. 184 of 1985 pronounced on 14-3-1988 (Monopol Chemicals' case). The question before the Full Bench, to quote the words of Jahagirdar, J., who spoke for it, was, weather the heading of each class in Schedule H to the Act was only by way of an index without controlling the meaning of the articles mentioned in each class, or whether the heading necessarily implied that the description of the articles mentioned in each class so that the identify of the articles in each class cannot be established correctly without reference to the heading of each class. In other words, did the heading of a class, limit the meaning of the articles mentioned in the entries thereunder. Giving an affirmative answer to this question the learned Judge explained the reasons thus :--- "One is that the Legislature does not use surplusage while enacting a law. Secondly, what have been described as headings are not analogous to marginal notes to sections in an enactment, but are descriptions of the articles mentioned in that Class. Thirdly, the use of the word "Class" in respect of a group of the articles cannot be regarded as without any significance. Fourthly, the articles grouped under each Class by the Legislature in its wisdom have some characteristics or features in common, either in construction or in their end-uses which, the Legislature thought, warrant a particular rate of octroi. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that the headings of the descriptions of each Class of articles mentioned in Schedule H are not surplusage or not mere index to guide the importer or the staff of the Municipal Corporations. They necessarily control the identify of the articles contained in each class." The inference flowing for a resolution of the issue in this case is that the headings given to the class and the main item have a bearing on the meaning to be given to what constitutes an electrical domestic appliance. 6. Mr. Kapadia for the petitioner submits that Wool is not a metal or made of metal. 6. Mr. Kapadia for the petitioner submits that Wool is not a metal or made of metal. Next it is not' a machinery or a component or spare of machinery'. Thirdly, it is not an electrical appliance-'domestic' aspect apart. Learned Counsel relies on Pendse, J's, decision dated 19-6-1986 in Writ Petition No. 660 of 1982 to support his contention. In that case the question was whether a package type air conditioner was an electrical domestic appliance within the meaning of Entry 50 or an article falling in Entry 52. Negativing the Corporation's attempt to tax it at the rate prescribed by Entry 52, the learned Judge held that package type air conditioners were a machine and in any event a component of an air conditioning system for which reason it fell under Entry 50. Pendse, J., also negatived the contention that air conditioners and water coolers were not electrical domestic appliances because of their being widely used in officers, shops and other public places, though their use in private residences was not unknown. This decision conforms to the well known principle that in a classification problem where there be an entry applicable in a broad sense the same is to be preferred as against that which would require a scissor-and-paste job to be applicable. That decision does not really apply to the present case. Mr. Kapadia relies on the decision given on 16-11-1984 in W. P. No. 898 of 1981. In that case the dispute was in regard to classification of "insulating varnish". The assessees, contention was that the product had a specialised use, to wit, in the manufacture of insulated and varnished wires and cables. For this reason the item was said to be assessable under Entry 22(a) which prescribed a rate tax lower than that applicable to items falling under Entry 26. This contention was sustained on the basis of the principle propounded in greater detail by the Full Bench in the Monopol Chemicals case. Mr. Sathe for the Corporation submits that Wool is used as an insulating material in refrigerators manufactured by the Petitioner. Refrigerators are an electrical domestic appliance and Wool would be a component thereof. That would be the effect of a combined reading of the item, title and entry. Mr. Sathe for the Corporation submits that Wool is used as an insulating material in refrigerators manufactured by the Petitioner. Refrigerators are an electrical domestic appliance and Wool would be a component thereof. That would be the effect of a combined reading of the item, title and entry. A component is one of the parts or elements of which anything is made up or into which it may be resolved (see Chambers 20th Century Dictionary). Counsel for the petitioner argues that a component to be within the reach of Item 50 must be of metal or an article made of metal. In order to so qualify the article even if it be a component must be a good conductor of heat. Wool is a bad conductor and therefore cannot be viewed as that component which is within the intendment of the entry. In Monopol Chemicals the Court sustained this reasoning vis-a-vis two entries both falling under Entry No. 52 of Class VIII and being sub-division (g) and (h) thereof. Wool is admittedly not made of metal. It is made of or with glass in liquid or flakes form - so says respondents's return. Its use in refrigerators is to immunise the interior of the equipment against outside temperature. This is what is said in respondent's office order dated 2-11-1985 when advising the Octroi department about the need to re-classify Wool. Mr. Sathe sought to bring in the eventual use or purpose-of-import theory to defend the impugned classification. That however is not relevant except in so far as recognised by the contextual theory further qualified by the class headings. The conclusions is that Wool not being a metal or of metalic origin is not a component or spare taxable under Entry 50(a)(iv) of the Schedule. 7. The petition succeeds. Rule made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b) to the petition-to come into operation eight weeks as from today. Costs as incurred. Petition succeeds. -----