JUDGMENT : 1. These two petitions are directed against the order dated 9.9.2003 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (Camp Jaipur) in Appeal No.43/2002 and 42/2002, respectively. 2. The brief facts noticed are that the respondent-assessees are carrying on the business of sale of Battery and its parts, and the issues arise for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. 3. The claim of the Assessing Officer was that though the respondent-assessee was liable to pay sales-tax on the sale of Battery-parts on a higher rate but the claim of the assessee was that rate of tax is to be levied treating it to be on the rate applicable on motor-parts. The matter was carried in appeal before the Dy. Commissioner(Appeals), who allowed the appeals of the respondent and accepted the contention of the assessee that Battery and its parts will fall in the same rate of taxation as that of motor-parts. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tax Board by filing five appeals, who also upheld the finding recorded by the Dy. Commissioner(Appeals), the department has assailed the said impugned orders of the Tax Board. 4. It may be noticed that while five appeals came to be disposed of by the Tax Board but only two petitions appear to have been filed by the Revenue against the order of Tax Board. It was also pointed out to the counsel for the Revenue to inform this court about other petitions, if any, filed arising out of the impugned order, however, the counsel was unable to assist in this regard. Accordingly, these two petitions are being disposed of by this order as issues are common. 5. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the Assessing Officer was just and proper and both, the Dy. Commissioner(Appeals) as well as the Tax Board, have not decided the controversy in correct manner. She contended that Battery and Battery-plates (parts) cannot be said to be taken into consideration as motor-parts, and she contended that Battery and its parts are being used for diverse purposes as well and not exclusively to be installed/fitted in a motor-vehicle and, therefore, the same rate cannot be held to be proper as that of motor-parts. She contended that Battery and Battery-plates (parts) cannot be said to be taken into consideration as motor-parts, and she contended that Battery and its parts are being used for diverse purposes as well and not exclusively to be installed/fitted in a motor-vehicle and, therefore, the same rate cannot be held to be proper as that of motor-parts. She further contended that the Assessing Officer had clearly proved that Battery and Battery-parts, which are being sold by the respondent-assessee, by and large on material on record, has found as a finding of fact that Battery and Battery-parts were being sold for other purposes as well and not necessarily for sale to be fitted in motorcars. She further contended that the finding of the two appellate authorities is perverse and needs consideration. She further contended that no acceptable evidence was led on record by the assessee to come to the conclusion which has been reached by the Tax Board. 6. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the Revenue, and have perused the impugned order. In my view, the order of the Tax Board is just and proper and is not required to be interfered with. 8. The Tax Board, after analysing the material on record has come to a definite finding of fact that even if some parts of Battery or Battery-parts can be said to be sold for other purposes but primarily it is meant for motorcars. In my view it has rightly come to the conclusion that general rate would not be applicable as Batery and its parts in common parlance is said to be fitted in motorcars. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay v. Acme Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1990] 78 STC 79, the questions before the Bombay High Court was whether perkins inlet and exhaust valves sold by the assessee were components of diesel engine or not, and whether particular rate is applicable or not? The Bombay High Court, after analysing the material on record came to the conclusion and opined that the diesel engines of which valves were manufactured by the assessee are component parts used in the manufacture of trucks i.e. a motor-vehicles, and the relevant para is quoted ad infra :- “7. Last argument is equally untenable. The Bombay High Court, after analysing the material on record came to the conclusion and opined that the diesel engines of which valves were manufactured by the assessee are component parts used in the manufacture of trucks i.e. a motor-vehicles, and the relevant para is quoted ad infra :- “7. Last argument is equally untenable. Diesel engines, as has already been held, in which the valves manufactured by the assessee are used are component parts of the motor trucks. It is immaterial that in a given case the diesel engines can be used in tractors, launches and earth-moving machinery. That apart, except for a hypothetical statement made before the Tribunal and this Court that they would be so used, no material was available on record which could reasonably suggest that the capacity requirement of the diesel engines for use in tractors, launches and/or earth-moving machinery was the same as was the requirement of the diesel engine used in the trucks. The case, therefore, has to be proceeded on the basis that diesel engines of which the valves manufactured by the assessee are component parts are used in the manufacture of trucks, i.e., motor vehicles. Apparently we see no reason to hold that a component part of a motor vehicle is not a component part of the motor vehicle. However, on the basis of certain authorities, it was strenuously argued by Shri Patil that it would be so. It is, therefore, desirable to deal with those authorities. In the Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Supreme Motors v. State of Karnataka [1983] 54 STC 308, the accessory to a part was held to be not an accessory. The relevant entry was "articles used generally as parts and accessories of motor vehicles." Accessory to a part is not the same thing as a part of the part or a component of the component. The case is, therefore, distinguishable. In this Court's decision in Koal Sales and Services v. State of Maharashtra [1984] 56 STC 151, it was held that oil engine used as a prime mover in a pumping set used as agricultural machinery would itself constitute machinery and since it is used for agricultural purposes, it would also constitute agricultural machinery. This Court's decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jayesh (India) Agencies [1984] 57 STC 128 was also relied upon by Shri Patil. This Court's decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jayesh (India) Agencies [1984] 57 STC 128 was also relied upon by Shri Patil. In that decision, seat covers and covers for doors, centre pillars, cowl pads and rear glass shelves, etc., were held to be accessories to the motor vehicles. In its decision in Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1987] 64 STC 420 (Bom), where the Tribunal had found that the refrigeration compressor sold by the assessee was primarily used as a part of a refrigeration system but it was also used as a part of a air-conditioning plant, it was held that the refrigeration compressor was not a part of a air-conditioning plant. The above decisions have obviously no bearing on the question involved in this reference.” 9. The Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay v. Shri Iron & Metal Works [1995] 98 STC 224, has opined that if the goods are capable of diverse use, user test may not be decisive, but common parlance test is applicable, and taking into consideration the same, one can safely come to the conclusion that Battery and its plates/parts are primarily used to be installed/fitted in a motor-vehicle, and the same rate would be applicable as that applicable in the case of motor-parts. 10. In the case of Jupiter Battery Works v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh [1973] 31 STC 80, the issue came up before the Allahabad High Court as to whether Battery would fall within the definition of “electrical goods” and would be taxable @ 7% or a rate would be applicable of component parts including Battery @ 6 pies per rupee and after analysing the Notification it was held that rate of 6 pies per rupee will be applicable to the turnover of motor vehicles and their component parts including batteries. Therefore, rate of Battery and its parts was taken as that of motor vehicles. 11. In the case of Vikas Traders v. The State of Gujarat [1976] 37 STC 163, after analysing the entries, the High Court opined as under:- “...If we apply the aforesaid settled test of a component part, it is obvious that a battery is such an integral part to constitute the whole motor vehicle, as without the battery it would cease to be a motor vehicle. The motor vehicle is a vehicle propelled by motor power. It may be mechanically or electrically propelled, but it is the battery which is the most integral part of the motor vehicle without which it would never have driving force and it would have to be pushed merely. In that view of the matter, a battery would fall under this entry 42B even as a component part. Mr. Pathak vehemently argued that such an interpretation could not be put on this entry in view of the fact that the batteries were put in the inclusive clause only in the “other articles” by the legislature. That is obviously done ex abundanti cautela for settling doubts, if any. As earlier pointed out, the legislature wanted to put the cataloged articles in this parenthetic inclusive clause on par with the component parts so that they may not be required to fulfill those two tests laid down for “other articles”, by this device of parenthetic inclusive clause and, therefore, it is obvious that this inclusion of batteries in the parenthetic inclusive clause would not afford any evidence for showing that a battery was not a component part of the motor vehicle. In fact, it satisfies the test of even a component part, as an integral part of the whole...” 12. This court in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle I, Jaipur v. Bits & Bites [2011] 44 VST 416 (Raj), while considering the case of Constant Voltage Transformers (CVT) and Uninterruptible Power Sources (UPS), whether these accessories of computers will fall with the rate taxable @ 4% as accessories of computers or whether they would be taxable @ 10% in general residuary entry, came up before this court for consideration, and this court held as under :- “19. The contentions of the learned counsel for the Revenue that since they can be used as accessories of other items like refrigerators, TV sets also, therefore, they cannot fall within the scope of entry No.50 is without any merit. Even if these goods if they were sold along-with refrigerators as accessories thereof, were to be taxed at different rate as applicable thereto, it will not mean that in the hands of the present assessee, a dealer of computers also, it has to be taxed at that very rate, which is applicable to the sale of refrigerator and accessories thereof. Even if these goods if they were sold along-with refrigerators as accessories thereof, were to be taxed at different rate as applicable thereto, it will not mean that in the hands of the present assessee, a dealer of computers also, it has to be taxed at that very rate, which is applicable to the sale of refrigerator and accessories thereof. The same goods like UPS and CVT, can be taxed at the different rates as accessories to different goods when sold by such registered dealers of different commodities. However, neither such specific entry has been pointed out, nor such a hypothetical comparison can furnish any basis for applying the residuary entry to the sale of UPS and CVT in the hands of the present assessee-dealer of the computers and parts and accessories thereof. 20. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that both the appellate authorities below were justified in holding in favour of assessee that sale of CVT and UPS was taxable at the rate of 4% in the hands of assessee as 'accessories of computers' and could not be taxed at 10% in the residuary entry of the relevant notification. Accordingly, these revision petitions filed by the Revenue are liable to be dismissed and same are hereby dismissed. No costs.” And thus came to the conclusion that CVT and UPS, though may have been sold for other purposes, but these are primarily accessories of computers only and are to be taxed @ 4% and could not be taxed @ 10% in the residuary entry. 13. In my view, taking into consideration the aforesaid judgments, and the finding recorded by the Dy. Commissioner(Appeals) as well as Tax Board, is primarily a finding of fact based on the material on record, in my view no question of law can be said to arise out of the impugned order so as to call for interference of this court as it is basically a finding of fact and on the material on record. No perversity is noticed in the impugned order. Consequently, the petitions being devoid of merits are dismissed.