JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—The present revision under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 24.9.1996 relating to assessment year 1991-92 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act. 2. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been raised : (i) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was right in holding that pulp valves comes under the heading of Machinery Parts and as such entitled to tax at the rate of 6.25% (5% + 1.25%) while fact and indiscriminating evidence on record indicate that it comes under heading of Mill Stores and should be taxed at the rate of 10% (8% + 2%)? (ii) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to knock off the turnover and tax as the sale of scrap as assessed by the Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Saharanpur in the order passed under Section 10-B of the U. P. Trade Tax Act while indiscriminating evidence on record indicate otherwise? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal has properly utilized the material available on record? 3. Dealer/Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as “the Dealer”) was engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of Machinery Parts. Parts manufactured by the dealer are mainly used in the Paper Mills. The total sale was to the extent of Rs.4,71,474/-. One of the item sold was Pulp Valves for Rs.84,425/- which was included in the aforesaid amount. The claim of the dealer was that Pulp Valves was the part of the Machinery, required to check the flow of Pulp in the Machinery and without the use of Pulp Valves, the Paper Mill Machines cannot function, thus, it is a machinery part. The Assessing Authority accepted the claim of the dealer and levied tax on the turnover of Pulp Valves as a Machinery Parts @ 5%. The Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Trade Tax, Saharanpur initiated a proceeding under Section 10-B of the Act, thereafter, passed an order under Section 10-B of the Act on 28.3.1996. The Assessing Authority accepted the claim of the dealer and levied tax on the turnover of Pulp Valves as a Machinery Parts @ 5%. The Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Trade Tax, Saharanpur initiated a proceeding under Section 10-B of the Act, thereafter, passed an order under Section 10-B of the Act on 28.3.1996. The Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Trade Tax, Saharanpur held that in the assessment year 1991-92, the claim of the dealer that Pulp Valves was the Machinery Parts was not accepted by the Assessing Authority and it was assessed to tax as a Mill stores @ 8% the view of the Assessing Authority has been up held in the appeal against which, no further appeal was filed and hence, so far as the issue of rate of tax on the Pulp Valves is concerned, has become final, therefore, it was not open to the Assessing Authority to levy tax @ 5% treating it as a Machinery Parts. The Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Trade Tax, Saharanpur further held that in the previous year, dealer was assessed to tax for Iron Scrap while this year, the Assessing Authority had not estimated any turnover of Iron Scrap. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Trade Tax, Saharanpur, dealer filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by impugned order, held that there was no material on record that the dealer had sold Iron Scrap. The Tribunal further held that Pulp Valves is required to check the flow in machines and is essential part of machinery, therefore, it is part of machinery and liable to tax accordingly. It is further held that the Mill Stores are small articles of a base metal of Iron, Copper, Aluminum and their alloys and is a small tools etc. as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. v. Aftab Husain Imdad Husain, 25 STC page 471 and in the cases of Fine Trading Corporation v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, 25 STC page 474; Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Ram Niwas Pusker Dutt, 1971 UPTC page 413. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 5. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Pulp Valves is a Mill Stores and not the part of machinery. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 5. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Pulp Valves is a Mill Stores and not the part of machinery. He submitted that in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Commercial, Taxes-Cum Entry Tax (Assessment-I), Bangalore and another v. Mysore Industrial Supplies, 106 STC page 585, Ball bearings has been held as Mill Stores. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax ,U. P., Lucknow v. Suresh Iron Foundry, 1974 UPTC page 136, Iron Pulley is held as hardware and Mill Stores and in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Shankar Motor Stores, 98 STC page 384, Axles has been held as not the spare part. 6. I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below. 7. I do not find any substance in the argument of learned Standing Counsel. 8. The Notification No. ST-II-6562/X-6(8)/85-U.P. Act-15/48-Order-86, dated 12.9.1986 relating to Machinery and Spare parts of machinery, reads as follows : In exercise of the powers under clause (d) of sub section (1) of Section 3-A of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 (U. P. Act No. XV of 1948), read with Section 21 of Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 U. P. Act No. 1 of 1904), the Governor is pleased to make, with effect from September 15th, 1986, the following amendment in Government Notification No. ST-II- 5784/X-10(1)-80-U. P. Act XV/48-Order-81, dated September 7,1981: Amendment In the Schedule to the aforesaid notification for entries against serial Nos. 18 and 38, the following entries colunwise shall respectively be substituted: 1 2 3 4 18. ...... 38. Machinery and spare parts of machinery, including water pumps and pumping sets not being such machinery or spare parts thereof as are taxable under any other item of this Schedule. M or I 5% 9. 18 and 38, the following entries colunwise shall respectively be substituted: 1 2 3 4 18. ...... 38. Machinery and spare parts of machinery, including water pumps and pumping sets not being such machinery or spare parts thereof as are taxable under any other item of this Schedule. M or I 5% 9. The Notification No. ST-II-5784/X-10(1)-80- U.P. Act 15/48-Order-81, dated 7.9.1981 reads as follows : In exercise of the powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 3-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (U. P. Act No. XV of 1948) read with Section 21 of the U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1904) and in supersession of all previous notifications issued from time to time under sub-section (1) of Section 3-A of the Act as it stood before its amendment by the U. P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Orinance, 1981 (U. P. Ordinance No. 12 of 1981), Governor is pleased to declare that with effect from September 7, 1981, turnover in respect of the goods specified in column 2 of the Schedule to the Notification shall be liable to tax at the point of sale specified in column 3 of said Schedule at the rate specified against each in column 4 thereof— Schedule “M” stands for sale by the manufacturer in Uttar Pradesh. “I” stands for sale by the importer in Uttar Pradesh. Sl.No. Description of goods point of Tax rate of tax. I II III IV 1 to 40 ..... 41. Mill stores and hardware excluding iron or Steel wires, but including iron or steel goods not covered by any other item of this Schedule. M or I 8% 10. The decisions cited by learned Standing Counsel are not relevant to the issue and are not applicable. 11. In the case of Assistant Commissioner of Commercial, Taxes-Cum Entry Tax (Assessment-I), Bangalore and another v. Mysore Industrial Supplies (supra), the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court has not held Ball Bearings as a Mill Stores. It has been held that Ball Bearings though, may be a part or accessories, but they are used in every type of machinery, toys and even in other contrivances and in common parlance, Ball Bearings are not understood as parts or accessories of industrial machinery, but Ball Bearings has not held as a Mill Stores. 12. It has been held that Ball Bearings though, may be a part or accessories, but they are used in every type of machinery, toys and even in other contrivances and in common parlance, Ball Bearings are not understood as parts or accessories of industrial machinery, but Ball Bearings has not held as a Mill Stores. 12. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P., Lucknow v. Suresh Iron Foundry (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held the Iron Pulleys as a Hardware on the ground that Pulleys are generally used for driving the machines and not as a part of the machines. 13. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Shankar Motor Stores (supra), the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that Iron Axles is covered under the entry of “Iron Steel” as defined under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act and not as a Spare Part of Vehicle being specifically covered under the entry of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act which relates to the goods of special importance. 14. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Aftab Husain Imdad Husain (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that in the popular sense “Hardware” would comprise small articles of base metals such as Iron, Copper, Aluminum and their alloy like Brass etc. The meaning in the Shorter English Oxford Dictionary approximates to this popular meaning. There the term “Hardware” means “small wares or goods of metal, iron mongery.” 15. In the case of Fine Trading Corporation v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that Kitchen Knives and Penknives are not Mill Stores and Hardware. The Division Bench of this Court held as follows : “We are of opinion that the various items mentioned in the entry must be understood in the sense implied from their membership of that category. “Mill stores and hardware” have been deliberately set down as comprising between themselves a single category, and, therefore, when determining what “hardware” as used here means we must read the entire entry to ascertain what was intended within the category covered by it. It could be said that the word “hardware” in the entry takes its colour from “Mill-stores”. Its meaning is limited by the company it keeps. It could be said that the word “hardware” in the entry takes its colour from “Mill-stores”. Its meaning is limited by the company it keeps. If the word was intended to comprehend its wider meaning it would, we think, be entered as a separate entry and not be put in the same entry as “Mill stores”. We had occasion to consider the expression “Mill-stores and Hardware” in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Aftab Husain and we pointed out that the expression referred to commodities belonging to allied trades, that while “Mill stores” consisted of items such as small tools and spare parts of machinery, “Hardware” referred ordinarily to items made of base metal consisting of building materials such as nuts, bolts, hinges, rivets, latches etc.” 16. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. Lucknow v. Subhash Mill Stores, Gorakhpur, 1978 UPTC page 657, this Court held Chakki Ka Pathar (stone) as a spare parts of grinding machines. This Court has also held as follows: “In the case of Vithal Chhagan & Sons v. State of Gujarat, 17 STC 96 the Bombay High Court held that a spare part is a part which is severable and capable of being substituted or replaced by another, or otherwise there would be no point in having an additional or extra part or carrying, holding or keeping such parts in reserve for future use, or to supply in emergency. This Court has also considered the matter in Bajoria Halwaiya Service Station v. State of U.P., 26 STC 108. It was held that in the popular sense, spare part when used with reference to motor vehicle is the duplicate part of motor vehicle kept in readiness to replace a loss or breakage etc.” 17. Pulp Valves is not known in the popular sense or in commercial sense as a “Hardware or Mill Stores”. As held, it is essential parts which is required to check the flow of Pulp in a Paper Mill Machinery and without the use of Pulp Valves, machines could not function, therefore, it is a machinery parts and liable to tax accordingly. 18. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. 19. In the result, revision fails, and is, accordingly, dismissed. Revision Dismissed. ————