ORDER N.K. Jain, J. 1. The petitioner, a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is aggrieved by the order dated July 26, 1995 (annexure P/12) of the District Level Committee (respondent No. 4) as also the orders dated July 26, 1998 and May 19, 1999 (annexures P/16 and P/18), passed in appeals by the State Level Committee (respondent No. 3) and the State Appellate Forum (respondent No. 2) respectively, disallowing petitioner's claim for including the amount of fees paid by it in acquiring technical know-how (for short, "TKH"), in the capital investment in fixed assets, for the purpose of grant of eligibility certificate to claim deferment in payment of commercial tax under the Madhya Pradesh (Deferment of Payment of Tax) Rules, 1986 (annexure P/5) (for short, "the Deferment Rules") read with State Government Notification No. A-3-l-92-ST-V(56) dated March 31, 1992 (annexure P/7) issued under Section 12(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and as amended by a subsequent Notification No. A-5-l-92-ST-II(68) dated August 16, 1993 (annexure P/8), so as to include within its ambit exemption from commercial tax payable under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1995. 2. The petitioner-company has its factory in Electronic Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore, and carries on business of manufacture of ultra sound scanners. It has got registered as dealer under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 as also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. After the repeal of Act 1958 it is now registered under the present Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1995. It is also registered as small-scale industrial unit with the Industries Department of Government of M.P. The petitioner-company, it appears has entered into a collaboration agreement with a Japanese company--Shimadzu Corporation for acquiring amongst other things, TKH and claims to have paid fee Rs. 78,99,068 for that purpose. For the purpose of this petition it is also not disputed that the petitioner-company has commenced its commercial production from May 9, 1993. 3. The petitioner-company made an application under the Deferment Rules to the District Level Committee for grant of eligibility certificate which would enable it to claim benefit of deferment of payment of commercial tax. The petitioner claimed deferment in respect of the total capital investment to the tune of Rs. 3. The petitioner-company made an application under the Deferment Rules to the District Level Committee for grant of eligibility certificate which would enable it to claim benefit of deferment of payment of commercial tax. The petitioner claimed deferment in respect of the total capital investment to the tune of Rs. 1,33,35,586 which included the said amount of fees allegedly paid by the petitioner for acquiring TKH. The District Level Committee, vide its letter dated July 26, 1995 (annexure P/12) informed the petitioner-company that its claim for deferment certificate has been accepted in part only, i.e., to the extent of Rs. 55,20,604. The petitioner's claim for inclusion of the said amount of fees was disallowed by the Committee. The appeals filed by the petitioner before the State Level Committee and the State Appellate Forum were also disallowed (vide orders, annexures P/16 and P/18). All the three authorities were concurrently of the view that the amount so spent was not an "investment in fixed assets" within the meaning of the Deferment Rules. 4. I have heard Shri G.M. Chafekar, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Shri S.S. Samvatsar for the petitioner and Shri D.D. Vyas, learned Additional Advocate-General appearing with Shri S. Mukati, Government Advocate, for the respondents. 5. Under the Deferment Rules read with notification dated March 31, 1992, deferment is permissible for a period of 5 years on "the capital investment in fixed assets" in respect of a unit located in certain districts within the State of M.P. The expression "fixed assets" has been defined in the notification dated October 16, 1986 as follows : "(a) 'Fixed assets', shall mean land, building, plant and machinery." The inbred question, thus, requiring determination is whether the investment made by the petitioner-company in acquiring TKH can be said to be investment in "plant" so as to amount "investment in fixed assets" under the Deferment Rules ? 6. The word "plant" has not been defined under the Rules or in the related notifications nor under the M.P. Acts of 1958 or 1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, asserted that the expenditure incurred by the petitioner by way of fees for TKH was undoubtedly a part of the capital investment and the said capital assets, namely, TKH acquired by the petitioner in the shape of drawing, designs, charts, plans processing data and other literature was a part of plant. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, asserted that the expenditure incurred by the petitioner by way of fees for TKH was undoubtedly a part of the capital investment and the said capital assets, namely, TKH acquired by the petitioner in the shape of drawing, designs, charts, plans processing data and other literature was a part of plant. Although the documents supplied by the collaborator by way of TKH did not perform any mechanical operations or process, nevertheless they were in a sense the basic tools of the petitioner's unit, the learned counsel asserted. He also referred to the definition of the word "plant" occurring in Section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act saying "'plant' includes ships, vehicles, books, scientific apparatus and surgical equipments used for the purposes of the business". Reliance was also placed on a Supreme Court decision in Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh [1986] 157 ITR 86, wherein it was held that for the purpose of Section 43(3) of the I.T. Act the TKH in the shape of drawing, designs, chart sheet, etc., falls within the definition of "plant". As against it, Shri D.D. Vyas, learned Additional Advocate-General, contended that the word "plant" used under the Deferment Rules cannot be assigned such a wide meaning as is assigned to it under Section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act. The expression "fixed assets" used under these Rules narrows down its meaning and so, only the assets of permanent nature acquired by an industrial unit would form part of plant for the purpose of these Rules. Reliance was placed on a Supreme Court decision in State of Bihar v. Steel City Beverages Ltd. [1999] 112 STC 185. 7. Having given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and considered the context in which the word "plant" is used in the Deferment Rules, I am clearly of the view that the question as extracted above must be answered in negative. 8. As already stated, the word "plant" is not defined in the Deferment Rules or the M.P. Acts of 1958 and 1995. The rule of literal construction can be applied in such a situation. Under this rule the words are understood in their ordinary or natural meaning in relation to the subject-matter. 8. As already stated, the word "plant" is not defined in the Deferment Rules or the M.P. Acts of 1958 and 1995. The rule of literal construction can be applied in such a situation. Under this rule the words are understood in their ordinary or natural meaning in relation to the subject-matter. Since in the instant case the subject-matter relates to trade and business, the word "plant" having a special meaning in that context, has to be understood in that sense. Such a special meaning is called technical meaning to distinguish it from the more common meaning that the word may have (see Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 6th Edition 1996). As per Chamber's 21st Century Dictionary, the word "plant" in its aforesaid technical sense means : the buildings, equipment and machinery used in manufacturing or production industries, e.g., factory, a power station, etc. As per Oxford English Reference Dictionary (new) the word "plant" means : a machinery, fixtures, etc., used in industrial processes. According to Webster's Encyclopaedic Unabridged in the English Language (new revised edition) "plant" means : the equipment including the affixtures, machinery, tools, etc., and often the buildings, necessary to carry on any industrial business, manufacturing plant, the complete equipment or apparatus for a particular mechanical process or operation. 9. It will be thus seen that the word "plant" in its general or even in technical sense would mean the building, equipments and machinery used in carrying on manufacturing or production unit. The context in which this word has been used and the object of the Deferment Rules also do not admit any wider meaning of the word "plant". On the contrary, they suggest for narrower meaning. This word "plant" has been used in the context of definition of the expression "investment in fixed assets". The words "fixed assets" give clear indication of the Government's intention that the assets for which investment is made and which is being given exemption from payment of tax should be of permanent nature. What the State desires and what the Deferment Rules require for getting benefit thereunder is not capital investment, but fixed capital investment. The payment of fees in acquiring TKH for a limited period under an agreement of licence cannot be termed as investment in fixed assets. 10. What the State desires and what the Deferment Rules require for getting benefit thereunder is not capital investment, but fixed capital investment. The payment of fees in acquiring TKH for a limited period under an agreement of licence cannot be termed as investment in fixed assets. 10. The apex Court in the case of Steel City Beverages Ltd. [1999] 112 STC 185 while interpreting the word "plant" occurring in Bihar Sales Tax Supplementary (Deferment of Tax) Rules, 1990 containing similar provisions like those of the Madhya Pradesh Deferment Rules, explained its earlier decision in Scientific Engineering House's case [1986] 157 ITR 86 (SC) and observed : "We cannot agree with this contention as we are of the view that the High Court was wrong in interpreting the word 'plant' in Rule 2(v) so widely. It failed to consider whether the object and scheme of the Deferment Rules permit such a wide interpretation. The High Court also failed to appreciate that the decisions of this Court in Taj Mahal Hotel [1971] 82 ITR 44 and Scientific Engineering House [1986] 157 ITR 86 were under the Income-tax Act and the observations made and the test indicated therein were in the context of the wide definition of the word plant given in that Act and, therefore, not of universal application. Obviously, if plant is defined differently under a different provision or if the context so requires, it may have to be given a different and a narrower meaning. The Deferment Rules do not define plant and, therefore, what should have been considered by the High Court was what meaning should be given to it in the context of the Deferment Rules." Their Lordships of the Supreme Court then considered the context in which the word "plant" was used and the object behind the said Rules and held : "The context in which the word 'plant' is used in Rule 2(v) of the Bihar Sales Tax Supplementary (Deferment of Tax) Rules, 1990, indicates that it is not used in its wider sense. Rule 2{v) defines 'fixed capital investment' to mean investment in land, building, plant and machinery. Thus the nature of investment contemplated by the Deferment Rules is investment in fixed assets which are ordinarily considered essential for production or manufacture of goods and have some degree of permanence. Rule 2{v) defines 'fixed capital investment' to mean investment in land, building, plant and machinery. Thus the nature of investment contemplated by the Deferment Rules is investment in fixed assets which are ordinarily considered essential for production or manufacture of goods and have some degree of permanence. The second proviso to Rule 3, which states that 'deferment shall be limited to 90 per cent of the fixed capital investment in fixed capital assets', makes this position further clear. What the State desires and what the Deferment Rules require for getting the benefit thereunder, is not capital investment but fixed capital investment. The rule-making authority did not intend 'plant' to mean what is not a fixed asset. By 'plant' what is intended is that apparatus which is used by the industry for carrying on its industrial process of manufacture." 11. In the instant case also rule-making authority did not intend "plant" to mean assets but fixed assets. The word "plant" has been used in its ordinary technical sense and what was intended is the apparatus which is. used by the industry for carrying on its industrial process of manufacture. 12. It is true that the factual matrix of the aforesaid case was different and what was ultimately held therein was that in respect of an industry manufacturing soft drinks and beverages, "plant" would mean that apparatus which is used for manufacturing soft drinks or beverages and not articles like crates and bottles used for storing the manufacturing product. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also led emphasis on this aspect of the case and contended that the case in hand is distinguishable on its own facts. I am however not persuaded by the argument. It is seldom that facts of two cases are similar. What is important is the ratio decidendi of a particular decision and which alone is binding. The decision in Steel City Beverages Ltd. [1999] 112 STC 186 (SC), lays down the principle of construction as to how the word "plant" occurring in a particular rule or notification is to be construed. The ratio of that decision is relevant and applies with full force, in the present case. The question as extracted above thus, deserves to be answered against the petitioner and in favour of the Revenue. The impugned orders passed by respondent-authorities, call for no interference by this Court. 13. The ratio of that decision is relevant and applies with full force, in the present case. The question as extracted above thus, deserves to be answered against the petitioner and in favour of the Revenue. The impugned orders passed by respondent-authorities, call for no interference by this Court. 13. The petition thus fails and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. Security deposit, if any, be refunded to the petitioner on verification.