JUDGMENT V. K. SINGHAL, J. - The only point challenged by the learned Government Advocate in this revision is whether the sale of "cables" amounting to Rs. 49,212 effected to the person establishing new industry is exempt from sales tax in accordance with notification dated June 13, 1963. The notification dated June 13, 1963 reads as under : "Finance (Rev. & Eco. Affairs) Department (Revenue section) Notification Jaipur June 13, 1963. No. F.5(79)FD/RT/63. - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Rajasthan Act 29 of 1954), the State Government being of the opinion that it is expedient in the public interest to do so hereby exempts from tax, the sale of all machinery for setting up in Rajasthan of textile, ceramic, glass, cement, engineering, sugar, metal industries and industry based (on minerals) with immediate effect, on the following conditions :- (1) The machinery is sold to a manufacturer who holds a valid certificate of registration under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Act. (2) The manufacturer so purchasing the goods gives to the seller a declaration in writing that the goods will be used in setting up of the above mentioned industries. (3) The dealer holds a valid certificate of exemption for which a fixed annual fee of Rs. 10 is payable. By order of the Governor, J. M. Lalwani, Secretary to Government." So far as the conditions Nos. 2 and 3 of the above notification are concerned, they are not in dispute. The contention of Mr. Bapna is that in accordance with condition No. 1 there should be a sale of machinery to a manufacturer. It is also not in dispute that the manufacturer holds a valid certificate of registration under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and falls within the category of "industries" mentioned in the notification. The dispute is whether the "cables" sold by respondent falls within the category of "machinery" or not. The word "machinery" has not been defined under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. If an item is not refined in a statute then the common parlance meaning or the definition of the other Act can be looked into. The dispute is whether the "cables" sold by respondent falls within the category of "machinery" or not. The word "machinery" has not been defined under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. If an item is not refined in a statute then the common parlance meaning or the definition of the other Act can be looked into. Following the Privy Council decision in AIR 1922 PC 27 (Corporation of Calcutta v. Chairman of the Cossipore and Chitpore Municipality) their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mir Mohammad Ali [1964] 53 ITR 165; AIR 1964 SC 1963 has observed that the word "machinery" when used in ordinary language prima facie means some mechanical contrivances which by themselves or in combination with one or more other mechanical contrivances by combined movement and interdependent operation of their respective parts generate power, or evoke, modify, apply or direct natural forces with the object in each case of effecting so definite and specific result. "Machinery" means a collection of ordinary tools. Wire being wound on to a drum is not part of the machinery which turns the drum Bullock v. G. John Power Agencies (1956) 1 WLR 171. An overhead cable way is plant and not "machinery" Quintas v. National Smelting Co. (1961) 1 SLR 401. The meaning of the word "machine" according to the dictionary in a popular and mechanical sense is more or less "complex combination of mechanical parts as levers, gears, sprocket wheels, pulleys, shafts and spindles, ropes, chains and bands, cams and other turning and sliding pieces, springs, confined fluids, etc., together with the framework and fastenings, supporting and connecting them as when it is designed to operate upon material to change it in some preconceived and definite manner" Sales Tax Commissioner v. Ladha Singh Mal Singh [1971] 28 STC 325 (SC); AIR 1971 SC 2221 . Their Lordships of the Mysore High Court has further observed in D. B. Bhandari v. State of Mysore [1967] 20 STC 25 in simpler language "machinery" is a contrivance whereby several things are put together to work in such a way that force may be applied at a most convenient point in a most convenient way to get a particular work or an item of work done or to produce a specific article. From the above definition it appears that if the cable is sold along with other mechanical contrivances then it may amount to a "machinery". But when the sale is of "cable" alone then in accordance with the meaning given in common and commercial parlance, the "cables" by themselves cannot be considered as "machinery". The notification dated June 13, 1963 has not used the word "plant". There is a distinction between "plant" and "machinery". "Cables" are no doubt plant but not machinery. Cables may become part of the machinery if they are fitted along with some "machinery" and that composite item may still be called as "machinery" but so long as the sale is effected of the "cables" alone, it cannot be considered a sale of "machinery" covered by the notification dated June 13, 1963, since it is not known as to whether the said cables will be fitted as part of the machinery or are used for transmission of electric power. The Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat v. Minu Chemical Pvt. Ltd. reported in [1982] 50 STC 339 has considered principle of the parts of machinery when they are assembled will be able to form a complete machinery, "as machinery". In Ambica Wood Works v. State of Gujarat reported in [1979] 43 STC 338 the definition of "machinery" was considered in a wider sense and the cables fitted with steam pipes, etc., were considered as "machinery". In the present case, there is no finding that the cables sold by the assessee are part of the machinery or will form a "machinery" when assembled. In this view of the matter, the decision of the Sales Tax Tribunal cannot be upheld and the order of the Tribunal is quashed. The matter is sent back to the Tribunal for giving a finding regarding the use of the cables and then decide the matter in accordance with the principles enunciated above. Petition allowed.