CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) THE instant appeal arises out of the order made by the Additional commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone-l, Bangalore, under section 22-A (1) of the KST Act, 1957, by which the said Revisional authority modified the orders dated 9. 9. 1991 in Appeal No. AP 129/ 91 passed by the Appellate Authority, the Deputy Commissioner of commercial Taxes (Appeals) BCD - I (now called as JCCT) bangalore and further the assessment order dated 9. 1. 1992 passed under Section 12-A of the KST Act, 1957, by the Assistant commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Asst.) - IX (now called as dcct) Bangalore, in so far as the same related to the issue of subjecting to tax the fabrication and installation of Air Intake Splitters and Exhaust Splitters' at 10% under Entry-1 of VI Schedule of KST act and further directing the Assessing Authority to issue revise demand notice. ( 2 ) THE twin questions that arise for our consideration in the instant appeal are: (I) Whether the order passed by the Revisional Authority revising the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 9,9. 1991 was barred by time under sub-section (3) (c) of Section 22a of the KST Act and further as to whether the Revisional Authority could modify the assessment order dated 9. 1. 92 passed by the Assessing Authority and further direct the Assessing Authority to issue revised demand notice. (II) Whether the work of fabrication and installation of 'air Intake splitters and Exhaust Splitters' fixed at the wall of the Test Cell of the M/s. Gas Turbine Research Establishment, Bangalore, a Central government Research Organisation (hereinafter referred to as GTRE) is an installation of plant and machinery to fall under Entry-1 of VI schedule to the KST Act to attract tax at 10% or a fabrication and installation by way of works contract to fall under Entry-2 of the said schedule to attract tax at 5%. ( 3 ) FACTS relevant for our purpose, though little bit elaborate, areas here under: that GTRE Bangalore, had placed orders for manufacturing, fabricating and installing what were called Air Intake Splitters and exhaust Splitters' to be fixed to the wall of Test Cell building for guiding atmospheric air into the engines and exhaust of the engines which were under testing in the Test Cell and that the installations in question were fixed structures in the building. That, the Assessing authority, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Asst.) (in brief 'acct (Asst.)') now Deputy Commissioner for Commercial "taxes (Asst.) (in brief DCCT (Asst.)) had issued the proposition notice in Form No. 31a. on 25. 3. 1989 setting out that the appellant had dealt in fabricating and installing the 'air Intake Splitters and Exhaust splitters' and the appellant by their communication dated 1. 4. 1989 had filed objection on various counts, but had not objected to the proposal of treating the turnover as related to the sales of fabricated machine parts. That, the appellant had thereafter filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) (now called as 'jcct) the First Appellate Authority. The Appellant had also produced before him photos of the splitters. The dcct (Appeals) though would have decided the matter himself had remanded the matter instead to the Assessing Authority for detailed examination and passing the considered order. The remand order by the First Appellate Authority was passed on 9. 9. 91. However, he made an observation in a passing way therein that the splitters appeared to be no machinery and that he did that without examining the issues himself and as such, the order passed by him on 9. 9. 91 was a restraint to the Assessing Authority in the matter of discharging of his statutory duty in passing the assessment order under Section 12a of the Act after remand. ( 4 ) THUS, in the re-assessment order dated 9. 1. 1992 passed under Section 12a of the Act, the Assessing Authority had less option even to apply his mind and therefore treated the transaction as work contract liable to tax under Entry-2 of Schedule VI of the Act and assessed the tax at 5%. It appears that the appellant before the assessing Authority had taken a stand for the first time that the work undertaken by them was works contract and as such liable to tax at 5% under the said Entry-2 of Schedule VI of the Act, which relates to structural work. In doing that the Assessing Authority had also relied upon a certificate dated 27. 5. 1991 issued by the GTRE, where it was certified that the AIR Intake Splitters and Exhaust splitters were structures, though it had not mentioned usage of the same. In doing that the Assessing Authority had also relied upon a certificate dated 27. 5. 1991 issued by the GTRE, where it was certified that the AIR Intake Splitters and Exhaust splitters were structures, though it had not mentioned usage of the same. Accepting the said contention of the appellant, the Assessing authority passed an order under Section 12a of the Act on 9. 1. 1992 assessing the tax at 5% treating the transaction as works contract falling under Entry-2 of Schedule VI of the Act. ( 5 ) IT is thereafter, the records were under examination by the office of the Additional Commissioner for Commercial Taxes, Zone-II, bangalore, the then Revisional Authority and in his reference No. LAR. PAC. CR. 12/93-94 dated 30. 4. 1994 had initiated suo-motu revisions as against the appeal under Section 22a (1) of the Act. As the first Appellate Authority's order came to be passed on 9. 9. 1991, the above suo-motu revision proceedings initiated by the above said revisional Authority was obviously well in time and before the expiry of the period of limitation of four years. ( 6 ) THAT thereafter the subject transaction of appellant was proposed to be treated by the respondent No. 1, as manufacturing, fabricating and installing as machinery and plant to fall in Entry-1 'of schedule VI of the Act liable to tax at 10%. Accordingly, the proposals were communicated to the appellant by issue of a show cause notice by the Revisional Authority and the objections were called for. Accordingly the objections were filed on 2. 11. 1996 by the appellant before the Revisional Authority together with a copy of the earlier communication dated 7. 5. 1994 sent by the appellant to the DCCT (Appeals)IX, wherein, it was contended that the fabrication and installation of the Air Intake Splitters and Exhaust Splitters amounted to fabrication and erection of structures falling under Entry-2 of schedule VI of the Act taxable at 5%. The Appellant had also given therein the details as to the material used for the manufacture of splitters and further stating therein that the 'air Intake Splitters and exhaust Splitters' were fixed to the structures in the Test Cell building of GTRE and as such was not to a machinery. The Appellant had also given therein the details as to the material used for the manufacture of splitters and further stating therein that the 'air Intake Splitters and exhaust Splitters' were fixed to the structures in the Test Cell building of GTRE and as such was not to a machinery. Later the appellant had also produced before the Revisional Authority a further certificate from GTRE to the effect that the appellant had supplied the installation of exhaust and intake splitters and that the subject work was fabricated structures fixed to the existing test cell for guiding atmospheric air into the engine under the test and guiding exhaust of engine and that the structures were fixed to the building and not to the machinery. ( 7 ) THE respondent No. 1- Revisional Authority there after in exercise of the revisional powers vested in him proposed to treat the transaction in question as the one under Entry-1 of Schedule VI to attract the tax at 10%. Finally, the Revisional Authority by over- ruling the objection filed by the appellant passed the impugned order dated 26. 3. 97. Having been aggrieved therewith, the appellants are before this Court. ( 8 ) NOW we come to the above two questions formulated by usherebelow: reg: Question No. 1: it was argued before us that the Revisional Authority had no jurisdiction to modify the order of the Assessing Authority. That argument was advanced on the premise that by Act No. 15 of 1996, the power of the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in the matter of modification of the order of the Assessing Authority was withdrawn since by the said enactment the words 'any proceedings' in sub-section 1 of Section 22a, the words and the figure, 'sections 20 and 21' stood substituted. ( 9 ) WE do not think that will improve matters in any way vis-a-vis the case of the appellants before us, for admittedly, the respondent no. 1- Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had revised the order of the Appellate Authority in an appeal preferred by the appellants herein under Section 20 of the Act, copy whereof is also produced herein as Annexure-B to the appeal. 1- Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had revised the order of the Appellate Authority in an appeal preferred by the appellants herein under Section 20 of the Act, copy whereof is also produced herein as Annexure-B to the appeal. ( 10 ) AS a matter of fact, similar question i. e. the limitation prescribed under Section 22 A of the Act and the revisional power of the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes arose before this Court in the case of BHAGAWAN RICE MILL AND OIL industries vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF commercial TAXES and in that case, the Division Bench of this court consisting first of us (Y. Bhaskar Rao J, as he then was) and s. R. Bannurmath J. held as hereunder. "9. Learned Counsel for the appellant secondly contended that ' the revisional authority exercised power after expiry of the limitation. Limitation prescribed is four years under Section 22a of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. In this case, the appellant authority passed an order on November 16, 1994 and the assessment order was passed on September 26, 1987. Notice was issued on April 22, 1994 to the appellant. The limitation has to be counted from the date of initiation of proceedings but not from the date of issuing of notice. In this case, proceedings are initiated on July 16, 1990. Therefore, if the date of initiation of the proceedings is taken, the exercise of the powers is within the limitation. Our view was fortified by the judgment in S. Subba rao vs the Commissioner of Commercia! Taxes in Mysore, bangalore (1967) 19 STC 257 (Mys), wherein, a division Bench of this Court held that for the purpose of counting limitation, date of initiation must be taken into account for the purpose of examining whether the power is exercised within the limitation or not as contemplated under Section 22-A (4) of the Sales Tax act. Therefore, we are not able to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. 10. It is thirdly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the revisional authority has set aside the orders of both the appellate authority and assessing authority, whereas, as per section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act it must be set aside in one side and not both. 10. It is thirdly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the revisional authority has set aside the orders of both the appellate authority and assessing authority, whereas, as per section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act it must be set aside in one side and not both. To appreciate this, it is relevant to extract Section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, which reads:"22-A. Revisionat power of Additional Commissioner and commissioner - (1) The Additional Commissioner may on his own motion call for and examine the record of any proceeding under Section 20 or section 21 of this Act and if he considers that any order passed therein by any officer who is not above the rank of a Joint commissioner, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, he may, if necessary, stay the operation of such order for such period as he deems fit and after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment or directing a fresh assessment. (2) The Commissioner may on his own motion call for and examine the record of and proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by any officer subordinate to him is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, he may, if necessary, stay the operation of such order for such period as he deems fit and after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment or directing a fresh assessment. (3) to (5 ). . . . . " ( 11 ) THE above decision of this Court in our considered view answers the question No. (i) raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants. (3) to (5 ). . . . . " ( 11 ) THE above decision of this Court in our considered view answers the question No. (i) raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants. We therefore find no substance in the first limb of the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants and we accordingly reject the same to answer the first question in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. ( 12 ) REG. the question No. (ii): It is borne on records that the Air Intake Splitters and Exhaust splitters manufactured and fabricated by the appellants were fixed by them to the wall of the Test Cell, part of the building of GTRE. It is not in dispute before us that the splitters were fixed on the wall after the same was manufactured and fabricated by the appellants at the place of manufacture and the function of the splitters was for guiding atmospheric air to enter into the engines and further to exhaust that engines under testing. ( 13 ) IT is relevant to point out here that the splitters were not fixed to the engine under test at all as if the same were spare parts for functioning of the engine and the common usage of the splitters was only for guiding atmospheric air into the engine and further to exhaust the same for carrying out certain test of the engines in the test Cell and that the GTRE carry out the testing thus and it is further relevant to point out in this context that, there is no mechanical contrivance or contrivances whether to make the splitters to function in the matter of flow of the atmospheric air through it and that the engine under testing in the Test Cell is no way connected to splitters on the wall of the Test Cell and as such the splitters fixed on the wall were functioning more in the nature of receptables for the purpose of flowing of the atmospheric air in a particular direction by guiding into the engines under test. ( 14 ) IN the said facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the splitters were not classifiable as machinery at all as it was not a mechanical contrivance requiring any energy whatsoever for its limited functioning, that too, independently and on its own in guiding the flow of atmospheric air. ( 15 ) WE therefore classify fabricated splitters fixed on the wall only as works contract of fabrication and erection of such structures to fall under Entry-2 of Schedule VI of the Act to attract onjy 5% of the tax and that the splitters fixed on the wall apart in no way be construed as spare part of the engine to be part and parcel thereof. As a matter of fact, as we see, the functioning engines constantly tested in the Test Cell by flowing atmospheric air into it through the splitters. ( 16 ) IN that view of the matter, we answer the second question in the negative and as against the revenue. ( 17 ) IN the result, we set aside the order dated 26. 3. 1997 in case No. BCD-t/smr: KST: CR: 36/96-97 passed by the Revisional Authority- respondent No. 1, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and in the process we restore the order dated 9. 9. 1991 in No. AP 129/91-92 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) (now called JCCT ). ( 18 ) THE STA therefore succeeds and accordingly stands allowed. No cost. --- *** --- .