JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Subodh Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. 2. The only issue raised before this Court is that the “electronic equipments imported by revisionist, whether come within the term “machinery” referred to in the schedule of U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 2007”), which has come into force w.e.f. 1.11.1999". 3. It is contended on behalf of assessee, M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, a Company owned by Government of India engaged in the business of telecommunication, that the various instruments which have been imported by assessee constitute “electronic goods” and since in the schedule, “electronic goods” are not included, therefore, the same are not taxable under Act, 2007. in other words, learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the term “machinery” in Item No. 2 of the schedule under Act, 2007 would not cover “electronic goods” and, therefore, the items imported by assessee i.e., the “electronic goods” are not taxable under Act, 2007. 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel said that the term “machinary” is a very wide term which would include within its ambit even “electronic goods” and unless there is something to suggest that “electronic goods” are intended to be excluded from the term “machinery”, there is no reason to do so by a simple process of interpretation since the entries in schedule are to be given a natural and wider meaning (in the absence of anything to read it narrowly) and whatever would be covered by term “machinery”, that would be included in Item No. 2 of the schedule and is taxable under Act, 2007. 5. In order to consider whether the equipments or so called “electronic goods” which as claimed by revisionist-assessee, do not come within the ambit of Act, 2007, as do not answer the description of “machinery” under Item 2 of the schedule, it would be appropriate to have a glance over the kind of equipments which have been imported by assessee in the case in hand. The items are shown in the invoices placed on record, which read as under: (i) Multi Wall Sets DIV of Cordact WLL system (ii) DIG Wireless Access System with Internet Access R2 MF based on Cordact technology (iii) WLL Cordact Equipment (iv) Solar Power Generating System (v) CM-XL-Equipment (vi) Puncom Generic Product Code: Max-XL CM (XL) (vii) Element of BTC Highway Equipment (viii) Part of Roof Top Tower 15 Meters (Tower) (ix) Ground Base Tower (x) Battery for Macro Non BSNL BTC (xi) D.G. Sets (C/A) & Mobile Equipments 6. The Deputy Commissioner (Assessing Authority) relied on the definition of the term “machine” and “machinery” in the Oxford Dictionary held that even an electronic apparatus or equipment would be a “machine” This has been confirmed by Joint Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 6.11.2007. The argument of assessee that telephone handsets and mobile sets are made available to consumers for communication using SIM cards and electro magnetic waves, is not a commodity so as to be considered “machinery” to attract tax liability under Act, 2007, has not found favour with him. This view of authorities below, has also been confirmed by Tribunal. 7. Item 2 of schedule of Act, 2007 reads as under: “2. Machinery and spare parts of machinery valuing Rupees Ten lakhs or more. (upto 31.5.2009)” 8. The term “machinery” derive its meaning no doubt from the term “machine” but its scope is wider than the term “machine”. The word “machine” itself has been taken from the Latin word “Machina” which in turn has been derived from the Greek word “Mekhane” a derivation from “means, expedient, remedy”. 9. Earlier, a machine, used to be said to be a “tool containing one or more parts that uses energy to perform an intended action”. Usually in its nascent stage the “machines” were powered by mechanical, chemical, thermal, or electrical means, and are often motorized. But with the advent of electronic digital technology, it has led to the development of power tools without moving parts. In the “American Heritage Dictionary”, Second College Edition, published by Haughton Mifflin Co., 1985, the equipments using electronic technology are also considered as “machines”. 10. But with the advent of electronic digital technology, it has led to the development of power tools without moving parts. In the “American Heritage Dictionary”, Second College Edition, published by Haughton Mifflin Co., 1985, the equipments using electronic technology are also considered as “machines”. 10. In ancient India, the concept of machines though as such is not penned down, but used to be understood and practiced by common people, using simple techniques like taking water from Well with the help of animal like Buffalo or Ox (called Rahet) and so on. Similarly, wheels of bullock cart constitute a simple machine making movement convenient and simple. In Roman civilization, the idea of simple machine is said to have originated by Greek Philosopher, Archemedes, around 3rd century BC, who studied simple machines, i.e., lever, pulley, and screw. The Greek’s understanding was probably limited to the statics of simple machines, the balance of forces, and did not include dynamics. It is claimed that Italian Scientist Galileo Galilei in 1600, explained that a simple machine do not create energy but only transforms. At that stage dynamic theory of simple machine was only worked out. 11. With the advent of heat engines, device designed to convert energy into useful mechanical motion and it gives rise to another kind of “machine”, i.e., engines or motors. Herein heat engines including internal combustion engines and external combustion engines burn fuel to create heat, which is then used to create motion. Electric motors convert electrical energy into mechanical motion. These electrical machines is the generic name for a device that converts mechanical energy to electrical energy, converts electrical energy to mechanical energy, or changes alternating current from one voltage level to a different voltage level. 12. With the advent of electrical and computerization, more sophisticated machines have come into existence. In simple way one can explain that electronics is the branch of physics, engineering and technology dealing with electrical circuits that involve active electrical components such as vacuum tubes, transistors, diodes and integrated circuits, and associated passive interconnection technologies. The nonlinear behaviour of active components and their ability to control electron flows, makes amplification of weak signals possible and is usually applied to information and signal processing. The ability of electronic devices to act as switches, makes digital information processing possible. The nonlinear behaviour of active components and their ability to control electron flows, makes amplification of weak signals possible and is usually applied to information and signal processing. The ability of electronic devices to act as switches, makes digital information processing possible. Interconnection technologies such as circuit boards, electronic packaging technology, and other varied forms of communication infrastructure, complete circuit functionality, and transform the mixed components into a working system. Similarly, “computing machines” are another advanced form of machines of modern day. The Computers store and manipulate flow of electrons, with patterns in this storage, and flow being interpreted as information manipulation. 13. In other words, one can say that earlier the concept of machines was confined to the mechanized equipments but with the innovative ideas, discoveries and inventions, the concept of machines has undergone a huge but consistent change. Today, besides the traditional kind of machines, we have gone to the extent of having molecular machine, which is a concept designed in bio-technology. The present day Scientist and Researchers term these machines and equipments as part of “nano-technology”. 14. The term “machinery”, as has already said, includes something more than “machines” and in general it can be said to include: (i) Machines of a particular kind or machines in general; (ii) The working parts of machine; and, (iii) The means or system by which something is kept in action or a desired result is obtained. 15. The above discussion leaves no manner of doubt that in totality the instruments referred to above imported by assessee, in one or the manner, constitute and satisfy the term “machinery” and its parts (including spare parts) and, therefore, the view taken by authorities below cannot be said to be erroneous. 16. Even otherwise, I find support in taking above view from certain authorities where the term “machinery” has been considered and explained. In the context of fiscal statute, the term “machinery” has come up for consideration by various Courts time and again. It would be useful to have a glance over some of such authorities. 17. In Nutley and Finn, In re, (1891) WN 61, Kekewich, J. held that speaking generally machinery included everything which by its action produced or assisted in production. 18. It would be useful to have a glance over some of such authorities. 17. In Nutley and Finn, In re, (1891) WN 61, Kekewich, J. held that speaking generally machinery included everything which by its action produced or assisted in production. 18. In Chamberlayne v. Collins, (1894) 70 LT (NS) 217, the term “machinery” implies the application of mechanical means to the attainment of some particular end by the help of natural forces. 19. Privy Council’s decision in Corporation of Calcutta v. Chairman of the Cossipore and Chitpore Municipality, AIR 1922 PC 27, laid down certain guidelines to understand what the word “machinery” would means and said: “(i) The word “machinery” must mean something more than a collection of ordinary tools. It must mean something more than a solid structure built upon the ground whose parts either do not move at all or, if they do move, do not move the one with or upon the other in interdependent action with the object of producing a specific and definite result. (ii) It is not possible to define “machinery” as applicable to all cases. However, it could be said that, when used in ordinary language, prima facie, means some mechanical contrivances, which by themselves or in combination with one or more other mechanical contrivances, by the combined movement and inter-dependent operation of their respective parts, generate power, or evoke, modify, apply or direct natural forces with the object in each case of effecting so definite and specific a result. The tank and its supporting structure do not satisfy this definition. (iii) Determination as to what is or what is not “machinery” must, to a large extent, depend on the special facts of each case. (iv) Illustrations are better guides to ascertain the true meaning of the word “machinery”, when used ordinarily and not as a specific definition. (v) Whether an intelligent person would, in the ordinary use of language, describe a particular thing as machinery.” 20. The Privy Council in Corporation of Calcutta v. Chairman of the Cossipore and Chitpore Municipality (supra) also held that machinery must be something more than a solid structure built upon the ground whose parts either do not move at all or, if they do move, do not more the one with or upon the other in interdependent action with the object of producing a specific and definite result. Their Lordships said that there was great danger in attempting to give a definition of the word “machinery” which would be applicable in all cases and it may be impossible to succeed in such an attempt. However, they observed that the word “machinery” when used in the ordinary language prima facie, means some mechanical contrivances which by themselves or in combination with one or more other mechanical contrivances by the combined movement and interdependent operation of their respective parts generate power, or evoke, modify, apply or direct natural forces with the object in each case of effecting so definite and specific a result. 21. In the context of Income Tax Act, 1922 a question had arisen whether a new diesel engine or petrol engine used in automobiles can be said to be a machinery or it is only a part of equipment or machine. The Apex Court considered it in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Mir Mohammad Ali, AIR 1964 SC 1693 and held that a diesel engine itself is a machinery. It relied on the earlier decision of Privy Council in Corporation of Calcutta v. Chairman of the Cossipore and Chitpore Municipality (supra). 22. In K.B. Dani v. State of Karnataka, 1979(44) STC 276 (Karnataka), a question arose whether Tractor Trailer is a machinery or necessary of a machinery for the purpose of levy of tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. It also relied on Corporation of Calcutta v. Chairman of the Cossipore and Chitpore Municipality (supra). 23. The Division Bench also quoted the definition of “machinery” and “machine” given in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, which reads as under: “Machine, engine, apparatus, appliance signify, in common, a device, often complex, for doing work beyond human hand or mind; machine applies to a construction or organisation whose parts are so connected and interrelated that it can be set in motion and perform work as a unit (those most practical machines of our modern life, the dynamo and the telephone - Havelock Ellis) (calculators, billers, duplicators, and other business machines) .......... Machinery : machines as a functioning unit.” The above meaning indicates that “machine” means a mechanical device consisting of a planned and an organized arrangement of various parts, each part having definite functions and, as a result of combined functioning, does some work, which may be impossible or difficult for human physical power to perform or even if it can be done it cannot be done continuously for a long period or with the speed and with the same uniformity with which the machinery does the same work. Supply of power to the machine could be either by the natural forces or by human or animal energy, or electric energy or any other type of energy.” 24. Referring to some other judgments of High Courts the Court held a “Tractor Trailer” is not a “machinery”, observing as under: “7. Bearing in mind, the criteria laid down by the Privy Council in order to find out what is machinery and its application in the cases referred to above, we shall now proceed to consider, as to whether the tractor-trailer is a machinery. A few illustrations would be helpful to decide whether the tractor-trailer is machinery or not. Take the case of a tailoring machine. When force is applied on the treadle, the bigger wheel which is connected to the treadle by a rod moves, which having been connected to a smaller wheel of the machinery called the balance wheel, by a belt, makes the smaller wheel to move fast and it makes all other parts to move in the designed manner. Thus, the tailoring machine answers the description of a machine. The work of stitching is done by the machine with great speed and uniformity. Doing similar work and with that speed is impossible by human physical power. So also a typewriter, which works in a systematic manner on pressing the keys of the keyboard by the fingers in the required manner which work cannot be performed by human physical power. But, take the case of scissors, though on the application of force at one end, the two blades of it move and can cut certain articles, it has no attributes of a machines. Force is not multiplied for doing any work. There is no organisation of the several parts into one unit, all functioning simultaneously on the supply of power at a given point. Force is not multiplied for doing any work. There is no organisation of the several parts into one unit, all functioning simultaneously on the supply of power at a given point. No intelligent person considers it a machine. The scissors therefore could be considered as an implement and no a machinery. A wheelbarrow used to remove any debris or mud, etc., is likewise in common parlance not considered as a machinery. Similarly, take the case of hand-pulled cart. By applying or supplying power it does not work as a combined effect of the movement of its parts as in the case of tailoring machine or typewriter. When pulled all that happens is it moves alongwith with the puller and stops when the stops. The tractor-trailer, just as a hand-pulled cart, moves when attached to a tractor and dragged by it and it stops when not dragged. The tractor-trailer is a mere receptacle made to contain specifications and is mounted on wheels. The tractor, which is a machinery, drags it, whether loaded or unloaded. In the trailer there is no systematic arrangement of several parts which move and function in the designed manner to perform any work, on the supply of force to it. It does not multiply or convert the force supplied to it for any such purpose. It only moves when dragged by a machine, otherwise it remains stationary. No intelligent person would consider it a machinery. Applying the definition of the word “machinery” given by the Privy Counsel in the Calcutta Corporation’s case (A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 27; (1922) 15 M.L.W. 253.) and the criteria laid down therein, and the decisions of the High Courts referred to earlier, we conclude that tractor-trailer is not “machinery” falling under item 20 of the Second Schedule to the Act.” 25. The Gujarat High Court also, followed the above interpretation of the term “machinery” by Privy Council in Corporation of Calcutta v. Chairman of the Cossipore and Chitpore Municipality (supra) and Apex Court’s decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Mir Mohammad Ali (supra) in Rashmi Enterprises v. State of Gujarat, 1993(91) STC 295 . 26. The Gujarat High Court also, followed the above interpretation of the term “machinery” by Privy Council in Corporation of Calcutta v. Chairman of the Cossipore and Chitpore Municipality (supra) and Apex Court’s decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Mir Mohammad Ali (supra) in Rashmi Enterprises v. State of Gujarat, 1993(91) STC 295 . 26. In D.B. Bhandari v. State of Mysore, 1967(20) STC 25 , the Karnataka High Court, while considering, whether “handloom” is “machinery” or not, said: “In simpler language ‘machinery’ is a contrivance whereby several things are put together to work in such a way that force may be applied at a most convenient point in a most convenient way to get a particular work or an item of work done or to produce a specific article or manufactured goods. If this is the essential feature of a machinery which distinguishes it from other things, the mode or he manner in which power is fed into it or force is applied need not and should not make any difference. It is conceded, for example, that a machinery would be a machinery whether it is fed by electrical power or other form of power applied by steam or generated by burning combustible oils. If the ode or the manner in which the power is applied makes no difference in these specific cases, it should make no difference either if the source of power is either human or animal.” 27. Looking to the above explanation and interpretation with reference to “machinery” I find that, how an individual or a party understand the thing or a commodity by itself would not be decisive in holding a particular commodity to belong to a particular category. It depends upon various relevant aspects. The general consensus in the context of “machinery” is that it is a device used for a particular purpose or result which takes energy in any form but results in combined functioning to achieve the work which otherwise may not be possible by human physical efforts or power, i.e., without help of such devices. The supply of power could be either by natural forces or human or animal energy or electronic energy or any other type of energy. The supply of power could be either by natural forces or human or animal energy or electronic energy or any other type of energy. The mere fact that such a device is considered to be an “electronic equipment” would not make any difference for the reason that the term “electronic” means that it is operated by flow of electrons. The term “electron” has been defined as a stable elementary particle with an indivisible charge of negative electricity, found in all atoms and acting as a carrier in solids. In common parlance the term “electronic” is applied to a system or appliance which is operated by a flow of electron. In McGraw-Hill, Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (Second edition), the term “electronic” has been defined as pertaining to electron devices or to circuits or systems utilizing electron devices, including electron tubes, magnetic amplifiers, transistors, and other devices that do the work of electron tubes. 28. This Court considered the items in question which have been imported by assessee, hence has no hesitation or doubt in holding that these items form “machinery” used for the purpose of transmission of voice from one place to another and this process is called telecommunication. It is true that some of the items by itself may not be said to be a “machinery” initially but then it satisfy the term spare parts of machinery. 29. Learned counsel appearing for assessee has frankly admitted that the items imported by assessee are used for the purpose of telecommunication and without use of these items, the communication as such would not be possible by human physical forces. 30. In view thereof I am in the entire agreement that the view expressed by Revenue that items imported by assessee are taxable, since covered by Item 2 of the schedule of Act, 2007. The question formulated above is answered accordingly, i.e., against assessee and in favour of Revenue. The order of Tribunal impugned in this revision is confirmed. The revision being devoid of merit, is dismissed with costs, quantified to Rs. 1000/-. —————