JUDGMENT Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, J. These appeals are against the orders of the Joint Commissioner passed in exercise of suo motu revision powers, wherein, the revisional authority restored the order of the assessing authority as regards the tax levied on L.P. records as falling under entry 9 of the First Schedule, taxable at 15 per cent. The assessment orders involved in all these cases are for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1991-92 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The writ appeals relate to the assessment under the Central sales tax for the aforesaid years. As the issues are one and the same, a common judgment is passed. The assessee herein is a dealer in gramophone records and cassettes. The assessee claimed that the goods in question were assessable under entry 41C of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. They were to be assessed at concessional rate as per the notification effected in G.O.P. No. 253/CT & RE dated March 17, 1986. The assessee contended that the gramophone records sold by the assessee were specifically designed for being played on electronic goods only. Hence, the benefit of the concessional levy as per the Government Order was available to the assessee. Originally the assessing officer accepted the stand of the petitioner and assessed at the tax rate of 10 per cent for 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89, two per cent for 1989-90, three per cent for 1990-91 and 1991-92, under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The Central sales tax assessments were also completed accepting the petitioner's case. It is further stated that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had also issued a clarification on April 28, 1986 that gramophone records were classified as electronic goods. However, the assessing officer revised the assessment and treated gramophone as one falling under entry 9 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and hence, levied tax at 15 per cent, as they are not electronic items. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, the assessing officer revised the assessment and treated gramophone as one falling under entry 9 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and hence, levied tax at 15 per cent, as they are not electronic items. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Based on the materials produced before him, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the product sold by the assessee would have to be treated as an item falling under electronic goods and accepted the case of the assessee that the product marketed by the assessee is taxable only at concessional levy at the prevalent rate during the material time pertaining to various assessment years. Viewing that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is prejudicial to the Revenue, the Joint Commissioner, exercising his suo motu revisional power under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, issued a show-cause notice, wherein the Joint Commissioner pointed out that there is no specific entry of item 41 for L.P. records and the L.P. records are not electronic goods by themselves, to attract concessional levy under the notifications. Consequently, notice was issued calling upon the assessee herein to show cause as to why the order of the assessing authority should not be restored. The assessee filed its objection, wherein, it elaborately pointed out as regards the electronic character of the records and hence assessable under entry 9 of the First Schedule. Consequently, the order of the appellate authority was in tune with the concessional notification. Hence, the assessee prayed for dropping of the proceedings. The Joint Commissioner considered the contentions of the assessee, but however, came to the conclusion that the distinction between the gramophone record and the L.P. record existed only in the operation of the disc devised to play with particular revolution per minute. Consequently, holding that L.P. records are not electronic goods, the Joint Commissioner restored the order of the assessing officer. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are filed by the assessee. Consequently, holding that L.P. records are not electronic goods, the Joint Commissioner restored the order of the assessing officer. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are filed by the assessee. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee herein took us through the relevant entries as well as the notification in G.O.P. No. 253 dated March 17, 1986, followed by the notification in G.O.P. No. 724 dated May 9, 1988 and notification G.O.P. No. 724 dated May 9, 1988, made in exercise of powers under section 17(1) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, whereby the Government of Tamil Nadu reduced the rate of tax in respect of electronic goods from 10 per cent to two per cent, which was subsequently cancelled under the notification in G.O.P. No. 155 in No. II (1)/CTRE/52(c)/90 dated March 17, 1990. However, subsequent thereto, in G.O.P. No. 155, No. II(1)/CTRE/52(f)/90 dated March 17, 1990, followed by G.O.P. No. 187 dated March 30, 1990, the Government once again introduced concessional rate of tax and reduced the tax to the rate of three per cent with effect from March 17, 1990. The learned counsel for the assessee would submit that going by the entries therein, particularly under entry 41C of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and having regard to the nature of functioning of the L.P. records, the product sold by the assessee rightly did not fall under entry 9 of the First Schedule. But as electronic goods, they are entitled to the concessional levy. He further pointed out that having regard to the fact that L.P. players can be played only in electronically operated system and could never be used on system working normally in mechanical operation, the question of bringing the same under entry 9 does not arise. Having regard to the considered order of the appellate authority, before whom all the materials were placed to substantiate that the disc sold by the assessee could be used only in the electronic mode and not otherwise, the question of the denying the benefit of concessional notification did not arise. Having regard to the considered order of the appellate authority, before whom all the materials were placed to substantiate that the disc sold by the assessee could be used only in the electronic mode and not otherwise, the question of the denying the benefit of concessional notification did not arise. The learned counsel for the assessee also placed before us the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kores (India) Ltd. reported in [1977] 39 STC 8 (SC), wherein the apex court considered the issue as regards the typewriter ribbon holding that the ribbon is an accessory and not a part of the typewriter. Going by the fact that entry No. 9 of the Act only deals with a component, without which, the player would not be operational, rightly, the appellate authority had granted the relief. The learned counsel also brought to our attention the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated April 28, 1986, wherein, the Commissioner has held that records and music cassettes, if they are designed for use in electronic record players and cassette players only, are eligible for the concessional rate of tax. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes), supported the order of the Joint Commissioner by contending that when the discs are not electronic goods, the question of treating them as one falling under entry 41C of the First Schedule to give the benefit of concessional rate of tax does not arise. Before going into the contentions thus put forth by the learned counsel on either side, it is necessary that the relevant entries, as existed during the relevant assessment years, need to be noted, which are extracted below : "Entry 9 of I Schedule 9. Gramophones and other component parts and accessories thereof, gramophone records and gramophone needles. 10. Dictaphone, tape-recorder and other similar apparatus for recording sound and their parts and accessories. 41C. Electronic systems, instruments, apparatus, appliances (other than those specified elsewhere in this Schedule) but including electronic cash-registering, indexing, card punching, franking and addressing machines, computers of analog and digital varieties, one record units, word processor and other electronic goods and parts and accessories of all such goods." From a reading of the above entries, it is clear that gramophone and other parts and accessories fall under entry 9 assessable at 15 per cent. Entry 41C is a specific entry to include the specific electronic goods and the other electronic goods and parts and accessories of all such goods. When the entries thus speak about the parts and accessories of electronic goods, the notifications, granting concessional levy on electronic goods, in particular notification G.O.P. No. 253 dated March 17, 1986, touched on the sale of electronic goods and "components" granting reduction in the rate of tax to six per cent when the goods are manufactured within the State and a reduction in the rate of tax to 10 per cent in respect of goods not manufactured in this State. This was modified and the concessional rate was fixed at four per cent under G.O.P. No. 291, CT and RE dated March 20, 1987 followed by a further reduction to two per cent under G.O.P. No. 724 dated May 9, 1988. Again the rate was fixed at four per cent under G.O.P. No. 155 dated March 17, 1990 and again reduced to three per cent with effect from March 17, 1990 under G.O.P. No. 187 dated March 30, 1990 in respect of electronic goods and components in the categories falling under any of the entries in the First Schedule to the said Act except those falling under entry 1B of the said Schedule to the said Act. A reading of the notifications thus makes it clear that what had been granted for concessional levy was electronic items and components and not what has been given under entry 41C as electronic items, parts and accessories. Hence in the absence of any specific reference to the particular accessories of electronic item, it is difficult to extend the benefit to parts and accessories too. It is no doubt true, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellate authority considered the distinction between the mechanically operated gramophone and L.P. Records which are electronic in its character and on seeing the products, held that it can be played only in electronic record player, that the revolution per minute in the mechanically operated player and electronic mode are different. As far as L.P. records are concerned, there is no dispute between the Revenue and the assessee, that admittedly, the product dealt with by the assessee are capable of being used only in electronic mode and not in any other mode. As far as L.P. records are concerned, there is no dispute between the Revenue and the assessee, that admittedly, the product dealt with by the assessee are capable of being used only in electronic mode and not in any other mode. The Revenue does not dispute the same. Hence, what had been omitted to be seen by the appellate authority while considering the issue on hand was, as to whether the disc sold by the assessee would qualify as electronic item for the purpose of attracting the notifications granting concessional levy. The appellate authority had not adverted to the issues from this angle. The learned counsel for the assessee could not deny this. Referring to the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kores (India) Ltd. reported in [1977] 39 STC 8 (SC), learned counsel for the appellant/assessee fairly pointed out that the disc sold by the appellant is not a component of long playing records. The decision therein in the reported case related to the sale of typewriter ribbon. The apex court pointed out that the typewriter ribbon are not parts of the typewriter, though it may not be possible to use the typewriter without ribbon. Applying the said decision to the facts herein, treating the disc as an accessory, the performance of the long playing records, no doubt, requires a disc for its operation. However, that, by itself, cannot bring it to entry 41C to qualify for a concessional levy. Even though learned counsel for the appellant brought to our attention the New Law Lexicon Dictionary, as regards the meaning of "electronic", we do not find that the dictionary meaning would give any assistance to the assessee as regards the issue to fall under electronic item. On going through the entries under the Schedule, we are convinced that the disc, as such, sold by the petitioner, did not qualify as an electronic item to fall under entry 41C. The assessee also does not rest its claim that it is an electronic item nor is the assessee able to point out that L.P. recorder could operate only with the disc manufactured by the assessee. Hence, it is difficult for this court to accept the discs as parts or accessories of the L.P. Hence, the question thus arises is as to which entry the disc sold by the petitioner would fall at the relevant period. Hence, it is difficult for this court to accept the discs as parts or accessories of the L.P. Hence, the question thus arises is as to which entry the disc sold by the petitioner would fall at the relevant period. As already pointed out, the revisional authority proceeds on the footing that items sold by the assessee do not fall under entry 41C. Except for a mere statement as referred to above, the Joint Commissioner gives no other reason to bring "disc" to fall under entry 9 so as to confirm the view of the assessing authority. There are no materials to point out that the disc sold by the assessee is capable of being used only in gramophone as given under entry 9 of the First Schedule to the Act. The only distinction now drawn by the revisional authority between the gramophone record and the L.P. records is only as regards the operation of the disc device to play with particular revolution per minute to bring the item in question under entry 9 which imposes rate of tax at 15 per cent. On going through the various entries in the Act, we are satisfied that the disc sold by the assessee does not fit either under entry 9 as contended by the Revenue or under entry 41C as had been contended by the appellant. In the circumstances, when a particular item in question is enumerated, viz., the device does not fit in with the entries of the First Schedule, the entry under which it can be taxed is under section 3(1) of the Act to attract multi-point levy, which was available at the relevant point of time, i.e., during the assessment years in question. Going by the said aspect, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the revisional authority and at the same time, we hold that the item in question is assessable only under multi-point levy and not under entry 9 of the First Schedule or under entry 41C of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. With the above observations, TC (A) Nos. 1851, 1888, 1859, 1861, 1889 and 1890 of 2006 are disposed of. W.A. Nos. 1679 and 1680 of 2000 relate to the assessment orders passed under the Central Sales Tax Act. With the above observations, TC (A) Nos. 1851, 1888, 1859, 1861, 1889 and 1890 of 2006 are disposed of. W.A. Nos. 1679 and 1680 of 2000 relate to the assessment orders passed under the Central Sales Tax Act. The writ appeals are filed as against the order passed in the writ petitions which were originally filed against the order of the Joint Commissioner. Having regard to the order passed in the above TC (A) Nos. 1851, 1888, 1859, 1861, 1889 and 1890 of 2006, these two writ appeals are also disposed of. No costs.