JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Sharma, J.—Heard Sri M.M. Dewan learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for opposite parties. 2. Since common questions are involved in these six revisions, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment. These revisions are founded on similar orders of Trade Tax Tribunal U.P. passed on 25.2.2004, disposing of all the appeals filed by the revisionists against the order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Trade Tax Lucknow. 3. The revisionists’ firms are engaged in the business of selling and purchase of Aluminium and Stainless Steel Utensils Non-stick Aluminium Wares, pressure-cookers and other domestic articles. 4. The revisionist M/s Lucknow Cooker Agencies being apprehensive about rate of tax on “Stainless Steel Water Filters” and “Non-stick Aluminium Wares”, presented an application under Section 35 of U.P. Trade Tax Act before the Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow, seeking his legal opinion about the rate of tax applicable on the aforesaid two items. 5. It was submitted before the Additional Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow that “Stainless Steel Water Filters” were covered in the entry 7 (c) (ii) i.e. “Utensils made of Stainless Steel” taxable at the rate of 4% at the point of sale by manufacturer or importer vide Notification No. TT-2-3402/XI-9 (116) 94- U.P. Act- 15/48-Order-94 dated 1.1.1994. 6. Similarly, it was submitted before the Additional Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow that according to the revisionist, “Non-stick Aluminium Utensils” were covered in the entry 6(1) i.e. “Utensils made of Aluminium and Copper” and taxable at the rate of 4% at the point of first sale by the dealer other than Karkhanedar or sale by the importer vide Notification No. TT-2-3403/XI-9(116)/94-U.P. Act 15/48-Order-94 dated 1.10.1994. Thus, the revisionist tried to persuade the Additional Commissioner Trade Tax that stainless steel water filter aluminium utensils were treated to be used for domestic, kitchen purpose, hence the correct rate of tax on both the aforementioned items was 4%. At the time of hearing of the aforesaid application, the Additional Commissioner, did not accept the contention advanced on behalf of the revisionist and held that “stainless steel water filter” is not a utensil in the common parlance and there was no other entry of water filter and, as such, it was an unclassified commodity taxable at the rate of 10% (8% tax + 2% additional tax). 7. 7. Similarly in respect of “Non-stick Aluminium Utensils” also, the learned Additional Commissioner did not accept the contention of the revisionist and held that although according to the notification, sales of aluminium utensils were taxable at the rate of 4%, but in this category only ordinary aluminium utensils made of pure aluminium are covered and non-stick aluminium utensils are not covered, nor there is any other classification of such utensils and, as such, “non-stick aluminium utensils” are also taxable as unclassified commodity at the rate of 10% (8% tax+ 2% additional tax). 8. Similarly, the other five revisionists, who were engaged in selling Aluminium Wares and other domestic items have also challenged the decisions of the assessing authority and the appellate authority by which the rate of 10% as trade tax was imposed on sales of Non-stick Aluminium Wares sold and purchased by these firms-revisionists. According to them also, aluminium wares including non-stick aluminium wares were to be taxed at the rate of 4% and not at the rate of 10%. The decision of assessing authority was upheld by the appellate authority i.e. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Lucknow vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2003. 9. All these revisionists challenged the order passed by the appellate authority before the Trade Tax Tribunal U.P. Lucknow. Their second appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal on 25.2.2004, giving rise to cause of action to them to file these revisions. All these second appeals were entertained by the U.P. Trade Tax Tribunal under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. 10. The following questions of law arise from the facts and grounds indicated in the revisions and other documents : (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in holding that “Stainless Steel Water Filters” were not covered in entry 7 (c ) (ii) i.e. “Utensils made of stainless steel” taxable at the rate of 4% at the point of manufacturer or importer vide notification No. II-2-3402/XI, dated 1.10.1994, but were instead taxable as unclassified commodity at the rate of 10% (8% tax+ 2% additional tax)? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in holding that “Non-stick Aluminium Utensils” were not covered in the entry 6(1) i.e. “Utensils made of Aluminium and Copper” taxable at the rate of 4% at the point of first sale by the dealer other than Karkhanedar or sale by the importer vide notification No. TT-2-3403/XI dated 1.10.1994 but were instead taxable as unclassified commodity at the rate of 10% (8% tax + 2% additional tax)? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of learned Tribunal are contrary to law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court in several judgments cited in the revision petitions? 11. In the case of M/s Lucknow Cooker Agencies v. Commissioner, Trade Tax Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, the second appeal was dismissed earlier i.e. on 24.8.1998. This judgment and order was followed subsequently by the Tribunal while disposing of the other appeals filed by other five revisionists. 12. Taking into account the materials on record and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the revisionists, this Court had granted interim order in some of the revisions at the time of entertaining them. 13. Learned Trade Tax Tribunal in its judgments and orders dated 24.8.1998 and 25.2.2004 did not accept the contention raised by the revisionists and held that both, Stainless Steel Water Filter and Non-stick Aluminium Utensils, are not covered in the aforesaid notifications and these are unclassified commodities. 14. Sri M.M. Dewan, holding brief for all the six revisionists has put forth his arguments. He has submitted that the Tribunal has held that stainless steel water filters are manufactured out of stainless steel. They cannot be said to be the utensils for holding or storing water; they are equipments designed for providing pure water, having additional facility of water storage. Similarly in respect of Non-Stick Aluminium Utensils, the Tribunal has held that these are utensils but since these have an additional coating of PTFE, a special non-stick material, they are not made of pure aluminium and, as such, they cannot be placed in the category of ‘utensils made of aluminium’. 15. Similarly in respect of Non-Stick Aluminium Utensils, the Tribunal has held that these are utensils but since these have an additional coating of PTFE, a special non-stick material, they are not made of pure aluminium and, as such, they cannot be placed in the category of ‘utensils made of aluminium’. 15. Sri Dewan has submitted that the findings given by the Tribunal regarding the above articles is erroneous, both on facts and law, as it failed to consider properly the use of these articles for the household purpose. According to him, the Tribunal has ignored the general principles of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts on this subject. 16. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further submitted that according to the ‘Shorter Oxford English Dictionary of Historical Principles, Third Edition, pages 2443-2444’, the word ‘Utensil’ has been defined as under : “Collect. Sing, Domestic vessels, appliances and furniture. Chiefly Sc.-1535. 2-Any article useful or necessary in a household; domestic implement, vessel or article of furniture; now esp. an instrument or vessel in common use in a kitchen, diary etc. 1484. b: Any vessel (or other article) serving a useful end or purpose 1502. c esp. A tool or implement used by artisans, farmers, etc. 1604. 3. One who is made use of (rare) 1678. 4. A sacred vessel, etc. belonging to, and esp. used in the services of a place of worship 1650. 5. (Chamber) utensil, a chamber pot 1699”. 17. In ‘Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary’, page 924, ‘utensil’ has been described as “an implement; an instrument or vessel used in domestic business” whereas in Webster’s New World Dictionary’ page 825, ‘utensil’ has been defined as “an implement or container used for a particular purpose , now esp. one used in a kitchen (cooking utensils)”. In ‘Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary’ 1998 Edition, page 1085, ‘utensil’ has been described as “an instrument or vessel used in common life”. 18. one used in a kitchen (cooking utensils)”. In ‘Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary’ 1998 Edition, page 1085, ‘utensil’ has been described as “an instrument or vessel used in common life”. 18. Learned counsel for the revisionists has urged that according to the ‘Oxford English Dictionary’, an article will meet the description of ‘utensil if it is useful or necessary in a household or it is a domestic implement or vessel or a vessel in common use in a kitchen or any vessel or other article serving a useful purpose, whereas according to Webster’s Dictionary, an implement or instrument or vessel or container used in domestic business or used in a kitchen would meet the description of utensil’ and the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary describes the ‘utensil’ as an instrument or vessel used in common life. 19. The ‘vessel’ has been described in Oxford English Dictionary of Historical Principles, Third Edition page 2469 as “……a receptacle for a liquid or other substance, often one of circular section and made of some durable material; esp. a utensil of this nature in domestic use, employed in connection with the preparation or serving of food or drink….”. In Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary’, page 934, ‘vessel’ has been defined ".... a utensil proper for holding liquors and other things, as a barrel, kettle, cup, dish etc…”. In ‘Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary’ page 1508, ‘vessel’ has been described as “a utensil for holding something….” and in ‘Chambers Science and Technology Dictionary’ page 951, in the description of ‘vessel’ it has also been mentioned that “…Water moves through perforations within a vessel but through pits into and out of vessels and from one vessel to the next…..”. 20. The “Stainless Steel Water Filter” when examined from the aforesaid description of utensil and vessel fully meets the requirement of a utensil, because undoubtedly it is household, domestic implement or vessel in common use in a kitchen and serving a useful purpose and while holding liquor (water) in it, the only other function that it performs is to filter the water before it is consumed and in this process, the water perforates (filters) from the upper vessel to the lower vessel free from the impurities. 21. 21. Sri M.M. Dewan has further submitted that the Tribunal while observing that water-filter was not merely a utensil for holding or storing water but an equipment designed for providing pure water has taken an erroneous view which is not in tune with the aforesaid description of utensil. The meaning of utensil is too wide and covers any utensil or domestic vessel or implement or container in common use in a kitchen and serving a useful purpose. Water-filter fully meets all these qualifications and while holding or storing water, it performs additional function of filtering the water for the purpose of removing impurities, hence it cannot be excluded from the description of ‘utensil’. It may also be mentioned that no equipment is fixed in the water-filter for purifying water by any chemical process and the only process involved is transfer by filtering of impure water from upper vessel to lower vessel through candles fitted in it. Even otherwise, the description of ‘utensil’ in the above dictionaries includes ‘implement’ as well and, therefore, even with the candles fitted in the container, the said container (vessel) shall still be fully covered in the description of ‘utensil’. 22. In support of his submissions, Sri Dewan has placed reliance on the following judgments rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India and the various High Courts of the country : 23. Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1978) 42 STC 433, has held that when an article is not defined in the taxing statute, words of everyday use must be construed not in their scientific or technical sense but as understood in common parlance. Similarly, in the case of Indo International Industries v. C.S.T., (1981) 47 STC 359, also Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India expressed the same view and held that in interpreting statutes like Excise Tax Act or Sales Tax Act, whose primary object is to raise revenue and for which purpose they classify diverse products, articles and substances, resort should be had not to the scientific and technical meaning of the terms or expressions used but to their popular meaning, that is to say, the meaning attached to them. This view has been held consistently in many other cases by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. 24. This view has been held consistently in many other cases by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. 24. On the basis of above decisions, Sri Dewan has submitted that the non-stick aluminium utensils are sold and purchased as aluminium utensils and are known as such in common parlance. These utensils are used by housewives in the same way as the ordinary aluminium utensils, the only difference being that these are considered to be superior than the ordinary utensils with added advantage of better heat distribution and quick and easy cooking. Thus, in the light of aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and applying the principle of common parlance also, these utensils are duly covered in the entry “Utensils of Aluminium and Copper” in the above notification dated 1.10.1994 and the learned Tribunal has erred in taking a contrary view. 25. The view expressed by the learned Tribunal is neglected by the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s Yadav Metal Industries v. C.S.T., (1980) 46 STC 30 , wherein the Hon’ble Court after considering the aforementioned description of the word ‘utensil’ in Shorter Oxford Dictionary, held as under : “The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘utensil’ is thus sufficiently wide to include any article useful or necessary in a house-hold. We see no reason to hold that the entry in question should be limited to cover those utensils only which are generally used in a kitchen. If roadside labour gangs employed in a construction work use the articles in question, those articles would not cease to be utensils on that account.” 26. The Court held that ‘tagaries’ and ‘ghamelas’ are covered in the description of utensil. 27. Similarly in the case of Unicorn Industries v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1978) 42 STC 111, the plea of the petitioner that weight bowls used for weighing milk and attached to weighing machines are not stainless steel articles was rejected by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court which held that “weigh bowl” is an article made of stainless steel like any other household utensil and, therefore, squarely falls within the ratio of the decision in State of Gujarat v. Keshawlal and Sons, (1966) 17 STC 170. 28. 28. Again in the case of C.S.T. v. Jain Industries, Baraut, 1982 UPTC 1184, this Court held that sugar pans, in which is manufactured juice while Gur is being produced, are covered in the description of ‘utensil’. In the said case, this Court also considered the principles laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s Yadav Metal Industries. Similarly, in the case of C.S.T. v. Ram Kishore Goel 1978 ST 146 (All), iron buckets were held to be utensils and in the case of Cromelite (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 48 STC 223, surgical trays were held to be covered in the entry “Stainless Steel articles and utensils”. 29. Sri Dewan has strenuously urged that from the findings and the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is evident that the meaning of the word ‘utensil is sufficiently wide to include any article useful or necessary in the house-hold and the water filter being also such an article useful in the Kitchen is fully covered in the description of ‘utensil’ and the Tribunal has erred in taking a contrary view. As regards “Non-Stick Aluminium Utensils” the view of Tribunal that they are not covered by the entry ‘Utensils made of Aluminium and Copper” because they are not made of pure aluminium but have an additional coating of PTFE, a special non-stick material is also erroneous both on facts and law and is in disregard to the principles of law laid down by this Court and Hon’ble the Supreme Court in various pronouncements. 30. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that these utensils are manufactured from pure aluminium and thereafter only a coating of special non-stick material is applied on the surface to make cooking quick and easy. The revisionists had filed before the Tribunal literature of M/s Lallubhai Amichand Limited, Bombay and M/s Nirlep Distributors, Aurangabad, who are main manufacturers of such cookwares which show that these utensils are first manufactured from pure aluminium and thereafter only on their base a coating of special non-stick material is applied. 31. The booklet from M/s Lallubhai Amichand Ltd. mentions non-stick cookware as “made from virgin, commercial grade aluminium”. It also states that “The surface is first grit-blasted. Then a coat comprising binder resins is applied which ensures better heat distribution. 31. The booklet from M/s Lallubhai Amichand Ltd. mentions non-stick cookware as “made from virgin, commercial grade aluminium”. It also states that “The surface is first grit-blasted. Then a coat comprising binder resins is applied which ensures better heat distribution. Finally, the cookware is coated with PTFE, a special non-stick material, which makes cooking quick and easy.” The Nirlep booklet mentions that “Nirlep Cookware has a pure, thick aluminium base which spreads head faster. The PTFE coating ensures that your food does not stick to the bottom.” 32. On the basis of these documents, Sri Dewan has demonstrated that these cookwares are manufactured from pure aluminium and the finding of the Tribunal that these cookwares are not made of pure aluminium, is factually erroneous. After the manufacture of these utensils, a razor-thin coating of non-stick material which is of negligible weight as compared to the total weight of the utensil, is applied on pure aluminium base of these utensils and application of such thin non-stick material only on the base of the aluminium utensils would not change the nature of the metal i.e. aluminium from which these utensils are manufactured. Thus, even after such coating, the utensils would remain utensils manufactured of pure aluminium with a thin outer coating of non-stick material and would be covered in the category of “Utensils made of Aluminium and Copper.” 33. The relevant entry 6(1) in Notification No. TT-2-3403/XI dated 1.10.1994 is “Utensils made of Aluminium and Copper” and not “Pure Aluminium’’ or “Pure Copper” as has been interpreted by the Tribunal. When the Legislature has classified ‘Utensils made of Aluminium’, this classification would cover all utensils which are substantially made of aluminium and meet the description of ‘aluminium utensils’ in common parlance, although in the case of the revisionists such utensils are wholly manufacture from pure aluminium without use of any other material in their manufacture and outer coating of non-stick material is applied only after the manufacture of pure aluminium utensil is complete and thus even after this coating the utensil would meet the description of aluminium utensil and be covered in the aforesaid entry of the notification. 34. That Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Bhagvanchand and Company, (1978) 42 STC 325 has held as under : “......... 34. That Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Bhagvanchand and Company, (1978) 42 STC 325 has held as under : “......... When one speaks of an article made of stainless steel, it is essential that the article must at least be substantially made of stainless steel. Counsel for the revenue took the example of stainless steel vessel made of stainless steel with a wooden handle and posed the question whether such a vessel with the handle could not be treated as an article made of stainless steel. Perhaps such an article could be said to be made of stainless steel, though the handle part of it was made of wood. This is so because the article with the handle is still substantially made of stainless steel…..”. 35. This judgment is fully applicable to the instant case, as in the present case the utensil is made of pure aluminium with an outer thin coating of non-stick material. 36. In another case of C.S.T. v. Ram Deo Uma Shanker, 1983 UPTC 530, this Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal that the cast iron karahies sold by the assessee which were made of iron and silica sand, fell within item 83 of Notification No. ST-II-32/X-1012-1971 dated 15th November, 1971 which runs as follows : “Scissors, nut Craketers (Sarautas), ordinary knives and chhuries, razor (ustate), iron made Kitchen utensils and appliances….” 37. In this case, although Karahies were not made of pure iron and contained some silica sand also, the Tribunal covered it in iron made kitchen utensils’ because they were substantially made of iron, which was confirmed by this Court. This judgment is also fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. 38. Sri Sanjiv Shankhdhar, learned counsel for the opposite parties has opposed the revisions and has submitted that the non-stick cook-wares having copper plating cannot be treated as utensils. The special process is used in manufacturing these kind of special utensils. In common parlance, non-stick cooking wares and aluminium utensils are two different items. The Tribunal has rightly held that non-stick cooking-wares are used by an affluent class of the society while the aluminium utensils are used by common people or poor people. There is a great price difference between the two also. In common parlance, non-stick cooking wares and aluminium utensils are two different items. The Tribunal has rightly held that non-stick cooking-wares are used by an affluent class of the society while the aluminium utensils are used by common people or poor people. There is a great price difference between the two also. He has further submitted that galvanization process is done for maintenance of steel tubes and the steel tube remains a steel tube even after undergoing galvanization process. Non-stick cooking wares cannot be put at par with ordinary utensils. According to the learned Standing Counsel, by putting non-stick material, nature of utensil is changed. A non-stick cooking-ware is not made of pure aluminium. It has additional coating of PTFE, a special non-stick material. It is a different category of cooking wares, which have not been classified in any entry in the notification. Therefore, such items have correctly been treated as unclassified items by the assessing authority, the appellate authority and the Tribunal. 39. As far as stainless steel water-filters are concerned, the same cannot be treated as stainless steel utensils. These filters are unclassified items and as such, higher trade tax can be imposed on them. A water-filter is not used merely for the purpose of storing water; it is used for obtaining pure water after its purification. Devices like candles etc. are fitted in the filters through which the water passes and is purified. It is an equipment designed for purification of water with additional facility of storage of water. According to Sri Sanjeev Sankhdhar, learned Standing Counsel, the stainless steel water-filters cannot be treated as ordinary utensils. 40. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 41. I have also considered and appreciated the dictionary meaning of word ‘utensil’ as given in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary of Historical Principles, third Edition, pages 2443-2444, which is as under : “Collect. Sing, Domestic vessels , appliances and furniture. Chiefly Sc.-1535. 2-Any articles useful or necessary in a household; domestic implement, vessel or article of furniture; now esc. an instrument or vessel in common use in a kitchen, diary etc. 1484. b. Any vessel (or other article) serving a useful end or purpose 1502. c exp. A tool or implement used by artisans , farmers, etc. 1604. 3. One who is made use of (rare) 1678. 4. A sacred vessel, etc. belonging to, and exp. an instrument or vessel in common use in a kitchen, diary etc. 1484. b. Any vessel (or other article) serving a useful end or purpose 1502. c exp. A tool or implement used by artisans , farmers, etc. 1604. 3. One who is made use of (rare) 1678. 4. A sacred vessel, etc. belonging to, and exp. Used in the services of a place of worship 1650. 5.(Chamber) utensil, a chamber pot 1699”. 42. In Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary page 924, the word ‘utensil’ has been described as ‘an implement; an instrument or vessel used in domestic business’ whereas in Webster’s New World Dictionary page 825, the word ‘utensil’ has been described as “an implement or container used for a particular purpose, now esp. one used in a kitchen (cooking utensils)”. In Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, 1998 Edition, page 1085, ‘utensil’ has been described as “an instrument or vessel used in common life”. 43. I have also gone through the aforementioned judgments cited by the learned counsel for the revisionists. Learned Trade Tax Tribunal has held in impugned judgments that stainless steel water-filter and non-stick aluminium utensils are unclassified items and these are liable to be taxed on higher rates than the ordinary aluminium utensils and other utensils used for domestic purposes. 44. As far as stainless steel water-filters are concerned, the Tribunal has rightly held that stainless water-filters are not utensils. The contention of the revisionists is that the word ‘utensil’ has been described as vessels also. In the case of stainless water-filters, the water flows from one vessel to another through perforation. The revisionist has quoted dictionary meaning of the word ‘utensil’ and has cited exemplars of galvanized steel tubes, water storage pans and iron buckets etc. But in the present case, it is evident from record that in a stainless water-filter, the process of purification of water also takes place where the water passes through a mechanical device i.e. specialized candles etc. The sand particles are removed by the device fitted in a stainless water-filter. A water-filter is not merely a utensil for holding or storing water but is an equipment designed for providing pure water and an additional facility for water storage is also provided. In view of the specialized nature and function of the utensil, the stainless steel water-filters cannot be treated as utensils. A water-filter is not merely a utensil for holding or storing water but is an equipment designed for providing pure water and an additional facility for water storage is also provided. In view of the specialized nature and function of the utensil, the stainless steel water-filters cannot be treated as utensils. Thus the Tribunal has rightly treated the stainless steel water-filters as unclassified items for the purpose of taxes. The stainless steel water-filters are not sold separately as utensils for storage of water. As observed above, they have the device of candles for purifying the water. 45. As per Corpus Juris Secundum, appliance has been defined or employed as meaning a mechanical thing, an apparatus or device; an instrumental means, aid, or appurtenance; a thing applied or used as a means to an end, either independently or subordinately; something applied or used directly. 46. An ‘appliance’ is quite distinct from ‘materials’ from which it is made. An ‘appliance’ , as an apparatus, device or instrument, is ‘a means to an end’. The importance of an appliance consists in its utility to serve the object for which it is possessed. A device is used ‘as a means’ only when it serves some purpose in order to bring a particular article within the meaning of word ‘appliance’. The article should be capable of rendering the desired service. In the present case, the object of buying a water filter is to get the water purified and then to store the same for potable purpose. One has to see as to what purpose the utensil serves and what service the article renders. The ordinary utensil is used for storing water for domestic and other purpose while the stainless steel water-filter is used for entirely different purpose i.e. for purifying the water taking out its impurities through a special device i.e. candles etc. My conclusion finds support in respect of stainless steel water-filter from the following Division Bench’s decisions rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Hon’ble the Gujarat High Court : 1. State of Haryana v. Rajindra Electric Store, (1996) 102 STC 394. 2. Star Radio Electric Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Gujarat, (1971) 27 STC 367. 47. In these cases, the above High Courts have held that electrical appliances have devices which serve a particular purpose. State of Haryana v. Rajindra Electric Store, (1996) 102 STC 394. 2. Star Radio Electric Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Gujarat, (1971) 27 STC 367. 47. In these cases, the above High Courts have held that electrical appliances have devices which serve a particular purpose. Fluorescent tubes, starters , chokes and “phatties” are not by themselves electrical appliances but component parts or accessories of electrical appliances. When sold separately they would not be covered by entry 18 of Schedule A to the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. Likewise, in the present cases, the stainless steel water-filter is being sold as a steel utensil vessel and with a candle water purifying device fitted in it. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Trade Tax Tribunal, as far as it relates to stainless steel water filters, does not suffer from any illegality and is accordingly upheld. 48. Now this Court is to deal with the question whether non-stick cookwares are utensils or not. The learned counsel for the revisionists have urged that these utensils are made of aluminium and they have to be covered by entry “Utensils made of Aluminium and copper” . These utensils are principally made of aluminium and should be treated as utensils made of aluminium. By placing several documents and brochure etc. learned counsel for the revisionists demonstrate that a very thin layer of some chemical PTEF, Tefflon is coated on such utensils in order to make the cooking quick and easy and lesser oil is used while frying the edibles on such cookware. This process of putting a razor thin coating or fine coating of specialized chemicals, does not change the nature of the utensil. The very purpose or the function of the utensil is to make cooking quick and easy. The literature of manufacture of non-stick cookwares indicates that such utensils are made from virgin commercial grade aluminium. The surface is first grit-blasted. Then a coat comprising binder resins is applied which ensures better heat distribution. Finally, the cookware is coated with PTFE, a special non-stick material which makes cooking quick and easy. 49. Learned Trade Tax Tribunal has taken this process of putting a non-stick material on the cookware, as the same was not made of pure aluminium. Then a coat comprising binder resins is applied which ensures better heat distribution. Finally, the cookware is coated with PTFE, a special non-stick material which makes cooking quick and easy. 49. Learned Trade Tax Tribunal has taken this process of putting a non-stick material on the cookware, as the same was not made of pure aluminium. According to the Tribunal, a non-stick cookware contains pure aluminium and due to additional coating of PTEF, a special non-stick material, it changes the nature of utensil. The Tribunal has treated a non-stick aluminium cookwares as not covered by the entry “Utensil made of Aluminium”. Such utensils are treated to be of different categories of cookwares, which were not classified in any entry in the notification. According to the Tribunal, these utensils were unclassified items and are liable to be taxed at higher rates. 50. In my opinion, this finding is erroneous and the conclusions drawn by Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India and several judgments of the High Courts have not been properly appreciated or correctly interpreted by the learned Trade Tax Tribunal. The non-stick cookware is a household, kitchen utensil. In fact, such utensils are manufactured from pure vergin aluminium and only base of utensil is coated with PTFE, a special non-stick material. The purpose for which the utensil is used is to be given dominant consideration. A non-stick cookware is admittedly used for cooking in kitchen. The record reveals that such utensils are manufactured by using aluminium. The purpose of putting a fine coating of PTEF, a non-stick material, is to make cooking quick and easy. These utensils are used in kitchen for cooking and frying purposes. The said coating is of negligible weight as compared to total weight of the utensil. The nature of metal i.e. aluminium from which these utensils are manufactured, does not change. The utensil remains an aluminium utensil as far as its composition is concerned. In old days, ice-cream used to be served in plates. Now a days it is served in edible cones. The nature and the purpose of edible item i.e. ice-cream remains the same; either eat it separately or in cones made of starch. The medicines are being dispensed in soluble capsules. The revisionists’ case is covered by the decisions cited above. The ‘tagaries’ and ‘ghamelas’ (storage utensils) weigh bowl, sugar pan and ice kits etc. The nature and the purpose of edible item i.e. ice-cream remains the same; either eat it separately or in cones made of starch. The medicines are being dispensed in soluble capsules. The revisionists’ case is covered by the decisions cited above. The ‘tagaries’ and ‘ghamelas’ (storage utensils) weigh bowl, sugar pan and ice kits etc. have been treated as utensils by various High Courts of the country. Thus, even after coating, the utensil remains utensil manufactured of pure aluminium. In the above case, the article is substantially made of pure aluminium. The Madras High Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Bhagvanchand and Company, (1978) 42 STC 325 has held that utensils made of stainless steel having wooden handle shall be treated to be stainless steel utensils. Similarly in this case, by putting a fine coating of PTFE, a non-stick material for making the cooking quick and easy, would not make utensils as made of any other material. It shall remain a utensil made of pure aluminium and shall be treated to be covered in the entry 6(1) i.e. “Utensils made of aluminium and copper” taxable at the rate of 4% at the point of first sale by the dealer other than Karkhanedar or sale by the importer vide notification No. TT-2-3403/XI dated 1.10.1994. 51. In view of above, the revisions are partly allowed. Question No. 1 is answered in negative. This Court is of the view that stainless steel water filters cannot be treated as utensils. These are taxable as unclassified items taxable at higher rate of 10% (8% tax + 2% additional tax). 52. As regard question No. 2, the answer is in affirmative in favour of assessees. The Court is of the view that non-stick aluminium utensils are concerned in entry No. 6(1) i.e. ‘Utensils made of Aluminium and Copper’ and they are taxable at the lower rate of 4% at the point of first sale. Revisions Partly Allowed. ———