ORDER DEEPAK VARMA, J. - This petition has been filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated October 20, 1995, passed by respondent/Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Indore, whereby, it has been held that super enamelled copper winding sire (S.E.C.W.) falls in the category of electrical goods, consequently rate of commercial tax has been fixed at 10 per cent. 2. Brief facts for deciding the said petition are given hereinbelow : The petitioner is a public limited company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It has its registered office at Indore. Petitioner is a registered dealer under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and continues to be so under the M. P. Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994. Petitioner is also a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Petitioner carries on business of manufacture and sale of S.E.C. wire (for short "enamelled wire"). Contention of the petitioner is, that as per notification dated March 31, 1992, issued by State Government under section 12 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (Repealed Act), the rate of sales tax on this commodity was fixed at 6 per cent. This rate of tax, was enforced from April 1, 1992 to March 31, 1995. M. P. Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 also known as M.P. Commercial Tax Act (for short "the Act of 1994") came into force with effect from April 1, 1995, after repeat appeal of M.P. General Sales Tax Act. According to the petitioner, the rate of tax on enamelled wire has not been declared specially by the State Government by notification issued under section 17 of the Act of 1994. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an application under section 68 of the Act of 1994 to the respondent for determination of the rate of tax applicable to such enamelled wire. 3. After consideration of the said application on merits and after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, respondent has determined the rate of tax and has given findings that enamelled wire would be an electrical commodity. Consequently, it would fall under Schedule II, Part IV, entry 18, under which the tax has been fixed at 10 per cent. It is this order which is subject-matter of challenge in this petition. 4. On show cause notice being issued to the respondent, it has filed its reply in oppugnation. Consequently, it would fall under Schedule II, Part IV, entry 18, under which the tax has been fixed at 10 per cent. It is this order which is subject-matter of challenge in this petition. 4. On show cause notice being issued to the respondent, it has filed its reply in oppugnation. It has been submitted, that petitioner is engaged only in the business of manufacturing and sale of enamelled wire and it is not a dealer in motors or machines. It has been submitted that it is not the ultimate product which can be tested for determination of rate of tax, but, there are other factors which are to be tested into consideration. It has further been urged that motors and machines are different than enamelled wire. Respondent, therefore, has prayed that the impugned order be upheld and petition be dismissed. 5. I have heard counsel for parties and perused the record. 6. Entry 7 of Part IV of Schedule II of the Act of 1994, fixes the liability of payment of tax at 10 per cent on all items shown therein. The said entry is reproduced hereinbelow : SCHEDULE II, PART IV ----------------------------------------------------------------- S.No. Description of goods Total rate of tax (1) (2) (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1 to 6 ............. 7 All machineries or machines worked by 10 electricity, diesel or petrol and parts and accessories thereof excluding those specified in Schedule I and in entry 3 of this Part. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 7. The State Government issued a Notification F. No. A-3-1-95/ST-V(35) dated April 1, 1995 in exercise of the powers conferred on it, by section 17 of the Act of 1994, reducing rate of tax on certain goods payable under section 9 of the Act. According to entry No. 10 of the said notification, the rate of tax on spare parts of all machineries and machines working by electricity, diesel, petrol, has been reduced to 4 per cent. According to entry No. 10 of the said notification, the rate of tax on spare parts of all machineries and machines working by electricity, diesel, petrol, has been reduced to 4 per cent. The relevant portion of the said notification is reproduced hereinbelow : "F. No. A-3-1-95/ST-V(35), dated 1st April, 1995 In exercise of the powers conferred by section 17 of the M. P. Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 (No. 5 of 1995), the State Government hereby exempts the class of goods specified in column (2) of the Schedule below from payment of tax under the said Adhiniyam for the period from 1-4-1995 to 31-3-1998 to the extent specified in column (3) of the said Schedule." SCHEDULE ----------------------------------------------------------------- S.No. Class of goods Extent of exemption (1) (2) (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1 to 9 .......... 10 Spare parts of all machineries Partly so as to reduce or machines worked by the rate of tax under electricity, diesel or petrol. section 9 to 4 per cent." ----------------------------------------------------------------- 8. In the backdrop of these provisions, the question arises for consideration is, whether enamelled wire would be liable for commercial tax at 10 per cent or it can be held to be spare parts to the motors and machineries, thereby making it liable to pay tax at 4 per cent under the notification. 9. Both counsel have placed reliance on certain authorities of various High Courts and Supreme Court to press their respective points. I shall now deal with each of the authorities. 10. The first case placed before me for consideration in this regard is reported in [1995] 96 STC 300 (State of Andhra Pradesh v. Radiant Engineering Co.). In the Said case, the Division Bench of the A.P. High Court, While considering the entries in Schedule of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, has held that insulted copper wire would fall within the meaning of electrical goods under entry 38(i) of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, but, bare wire would not, and would be taxable as general goods. The relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow : "In common parlance when copper wire is insulated, it will be used as an electrical goods. That it is so is admitted by the respondent-assessee itself. The relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow : "In common parlance when copper wire is insulated, it will be used as an electrical goods. That it is so is admitted by the respondent-assessee itself. This can be seen from the order of the Deputy Commissioner when he pointed out, 'bare wire cannot be used as an electrical wire because of obvious reasons'. They also stated that 'the wire must be insulated in order to come under electrical goods'. But, according to their letter dated February 27, 1976, available at page 123 of the assessment file, they supplied insulated copper wire and not the bare wire. But now they have stated that they have supplied bare wire without giving any evidence to this effect. The Tribunal, in the order under revision, referred to the same letter, but did not reach any conclusions as to whether the wire supplied by the assessee was insulated wire or bare wire. Having regard to the wording of entry 38, we are inclined to take the view that if what is supplied is an insulated wire, it would be within the meaning of 'electrical goods' and would fall under entry 38(i); but if what was supplied was bare wire it could not be brought within entry 38(i) and would, therefore, be taxable under section 5(1) of the Act." 11. In another judgment of the Allahabad High Court, reported in [1980] 45 STC 332 (Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Kohinoor India Pvt. Ltd.), while considering whether wind screen wipers and oil gauges used in automobiles would be spare parts, if so, what rate of tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act would be applicable. 12. After considering judgments of various courts, the learned single Judge has held as under : "Before an article can be considered to be extra or spare part, it must be held to be part of the machinery. As unless something is part, it cannot be a part. A machinery may consist of numerous parts, some may be essential and integral parts of it and others may be for smooth and efficient running of the machine. All the same both are parts of the machinery. Those parts that can be replaced or substituted are described as spare parts. But merely because they can be replaced they do not cease to be parts. All the same both are parts of the machinery. Those parts that can be replaced or substituted are described as spare parts. But merely because they can be replaced they do not cease to be parts. A part which cannot be replaced becomes a part of the machinery itself and those that are capable of being substituted become spare parts. A spare part is nothing but a part of the machinery. The distinction between parts and spare parts for purposes of taxability drawn in the decisions is too artificial. If the notification would have used the words 'machinery, its parts and spare parts', it would have resulted in double taxation, once on the machinery itself and then on its parts. To avoid this, the word 'part' has not been used and tax is leviable on machinery and on its parts which are sold separately for substitution and replacement." 13. The Supreme Court also had the occasion to consider with regard to rate of tax, falling in different entries in the Schedule. While doing so, the test applicable, has been elegantly summarised in the judgment reported in [1986] 63 STC 322 [Atul Glass Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise]. The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow : "The test commonly applied to such cases is : How is the product identified by the class or section of people dealing with or using the product ? That is a test which is attracted whenever the statue does not contain any definition. Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana [1978] 42 STC 433 (SC). It is generally by its functional character that a product is so identified. In Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Macneill & Barry Ltd. [1986] 61 STC 76 (SC); (1985) 2 Scale 1093 , this Court expressed the view that ammonia paper and ferro paper, used for obtaining prints and sketches of site plans could not be described as paper as that word was used in common parlance. On the same basis the Orissa High Court held in State of Orissa v. Gestetner Duplicators (P.) Ltd. [1974] 33 STC 333 that stencil paper could not be classified as paper for the purposes of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. It is a matter of common experience that the identity of an article is associated with its primary function. On the same basis the Orissa High Court held in State of Orissa v. Gestetner Duplicators (P.) Ltd. [1974] 33 STC 333 that stencil paper could not be classified as paper for the purposes of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. It is a matter of common experience that the identity of an article is associated with its primary function. It is only logical that it should be so. When a consumer buys an article, he buys it because it performs a specific function for him. There is a mental association in the mind of the consumer between the article and the need it supplies in his life. It is the functional character of the article which identifies it in his mind. In the case of a glass mirror, The consumer recalls primarily the reflective function of the article more than anything else. It is a mirror, an article which reflects images. It is referred to as a glass mirror only because the word 'glass' is descriptive of the mirror in that glass has been used as a medium for manufacturing the mirror. The basic or fundamental character of the article lies in its being a mirror. It was observed by this Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [1980] 46 STC 256 (SC); [1980] 3 SCR 1109 which was a case under the sales tax law." 14. In yet another earlier judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in [1976] 37 STC 378 (Annapurna Carbon Industries Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh), the Supreme Court has held as under : "Apparently, the deciding factor is the predominant or ordinary purpose or use. It is not enough to show that the article can be put to other uses also. It is its general or predominant user which seems to determine the category in which an article will fall." 15. On deeper scrutiny of the matter, it has held further, in the said judgment of the apex Court as under : "It will be noticed that the entry we have to interpret includes 'parts' as well as 'accessories' which are required for use in projectors or other cinematographic equipment. We think that the Andhra Pradesh High Court correctly held that the main use of the arc carbons under consideration was duly proved to be that of production of powerful light used in projectors in cinemas. We think that the Andhra Pradesh High Court correctly held that the main use of the arc carbons under consideration was duly proved to be that of production of powerful light used in projectors in cinemas. The fact that they can also be used for searchlights, signalling, stage lighting, or where powerful lighting for photography or other purposes may be required, could not detract from the classification to which the carbon arcs belong. That is determined by their ordinary or commonly known purpose or user. This, as already observed by us, is evident from the fact that they are known as 'cinema are carbons' in the market. This finding was enough, in our opinion, to justify the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that the goods under consideration are covered by the relevant entry No. 4." 16. Thus on overall consideration of all aspect of the matter, I am of the opinion that enamelled wire would be liable to tax at 4 per cent only as the same would be covered under notification dated April 1, 1995, issued by State Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 17 of the M. P. Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994. I also come to the conclusion that the same would be spare parts, for machineries and machines worked by electricity, diesel or petrol. 17. It is not the case of respondent that even without enamelled wire, machinery could have worked smoothly and effectively. The respondent has, in fact, admitted that the same is used for winding purposes in motors, armatures, chokes and such other electrical goods. The basic and foremost purpose of such enamelled wire is to reduce short circuiting yet to give momentum to motors through its armatures, etc. It is also not established, even after, considering the submissions advanced by the learned Government Advocate Shri Piyush Mathur, that enamelled wire is not a part to be used in machineries or machines. Thus, the basic requirement, that first it has to be a part of the machineries or machine to hold it a spare part, is fully established. The said enamelled wire cannot be put to use as an ordinary electricity wire for the purposes of passing current through it. It has got its own distinctive purpose. Thus, the basic requirement, that first it has to be a part of the machineries or machine to hold it a spare part, is fully established. The said enamelled wire cannot be put to use as an ordinary electricity wire for the purposes of passing current through it. It has got its own distinctive purpose. A common man and in common parlance, same is considered to be put to use only as mentioned above and not for any other purpose which does not find place in the Schedule issued under the notification by the State Government. 18. In this view of the matter, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The same is hereby quashed. Instead, I hold that enamelled wire, shall be covered under serial No. 10 of the Schedule of notification, issued by State Government on April 1, 1995 and accordingly would be liable to be taxed at 4 per cent only. 19. The petition, thus, succeeds and is hereby allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded back to the petitioner after its due verification. Petition allowed.