JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Tax Appeals No. 72 & 73 of 2015 are admitted for consideration of the following substantial question of law: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is perverse having been based upon irrelevant material and by ignoring relevant evidence/material for the purpose of determination of classification under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969?" 1.1 Since the sales tax reference and both the tax appeals pertain to the same assessee and same subject matter, they are taken up for hearing together. 2. The applicant under Section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 made an application before the Tribunal to refer to this Court a question of law arising out of Tribunal's judgment and order dated 25.10.1999 in Appeal No. 3 of 1996. Accordingly, a statement of case was drawn on 27.02.2004 referring the following question of law by way of Reference Application No. 88 of 2001: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in holding that the product Wire Mesh cannot be considered as article of Stainless Steel (covered by entry 182(iv), nor can it be considered as accessory or spare part of machinery as mentioned in entry 55, but it can be considered as hardware item for which there is no specific entry and therefore the same is covered by residuary entry 195 of Schedule II Part A of the G.S.T. Act, 1969?" 3. The applicant company is doing business of manufacturing wire mesh made by weaving of different gauges of stainless steel wire on wire weaving looms and also demister pads and knitnesh column packaging pads which are tailor made items prepared out of wire netting (wire mesh) of stainless steel. The applicant made an application under section 62 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 16.01.1996 to determine the rate of tax payable on the sale of the above product. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax passed an order u/s. 62 of the Act holding that the items have multipurpose use and therefore are covered by item 'hardware' and therefore it is required to be treated as covered by residuary entry 195 of Schedule II Part A of the Act which refers to goods other than the goods specified in any entry Schedule to the Act. 3.1 Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') and the Tribunal dismissed the said appeal vide judgment and order dated 25.10.1999 and confirmed the findings of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. Hence the applicant made an application for referring the question of law to this Court. 4. Mr. Tanvish Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the applicant company has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure 7 to the reference more particularly, the applications of Misterscreen which reads as under: APPLICATIONS • In air pollution control to eliminate toxic mist from off gases • To reduce solvent losses in absorbers, scrubbers, distillation equipment • To minimize product losses in kettles, reboilers, vacuum pans, crystallizers and evaporators. • To eliminate entrainment in knockout drum and receivers. • To eliminate entrainment that might damage compressors and to deoil gases • To supplement equipment like carbon absorbers and electrostatic precipitators. • In refinery towers to prevent carbon and metal entrainment to downstream catalyst cracker and reformer units. • In liquid - liquid systems as coalescers." 4.1 Referring to the said annexures, which are produced on record, he submitted that both the products i.e. Demister pads and Knit mesh column are specially designed as per specification and used in distillation column and that wire mesh product is also of stainless steel wires which are woven on wire weaving looms. 4.2 Mr. Bhatt contended that the products in question are used for machinery and are made of stainless steel and therefore it would be covered by entry 182(iv) or at the most entry 55 which is related to spare parts and accessories of machinery but it cannot be covered by residuary entry 195 as it being a hardware product for which there is no separate entry. In support of his submissions, Mr. Bhatt has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Annapurna Carbon Industries C. v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1976) 2 SCC 273 and submitted that accessories are not necessarily confined to particular machines for which they may serve as aids but the same item may be an accessory of more than one kind of instrument. 5. Ms. 5. Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned AGP appearing for respondent State supported the impugned order and submitted that the same having been passed in accordance with law does not call for any interference by this Court. 6. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides we are of the opinion that considering the annexures placed on record and the nature of use of the product which is demonstrated, it is clear that it is meant only for industrial purpose. The assessee is selling wire mesh made by weaving of different gauges of stainless acted on wire weaving loons and they are to be used as per requirements for different uses. The Apex Court in the case of M/s. Annapurna Carbon Industries (supra) has held as under: "9. Our object in indicating the nature of entries, amidst which entry No. 4 occurs, is to show that some precision has been attempted in making the entries. When it was intended to confine the entry to particular gadgets and "parts thereof" the entry said so. Of course, even where an entry relates to parts manufactured for use for a particular kind of instrument of gadget only, the article, manufactured to serve as a part of a particular kind of apparatus, would not cease to be covered by the intended entry simply because a purchaser makes some other use of it. We have to find the intention of the framers of the schedule in making the entry in each case. The best guide to their intentions is the language actually employed by them. 10. We find that the term "accessories" is used in the schedule to describe goods which may have been manufactured for use as an aid or addition. A sense in which the word accessory is used is given in Webster's Third New International Dictionary as follows: An object or device that is not essential in itself but that adds to the beauty, convenience, or effectiveness of something else. Other meanings given there are: "supplementary or secondary to something of greater or primary importance"; "additional"; "any of several mechanical devices that assist in operating or controlling the tone resources of an organ." "Accessories" are not necessarily confined to particular machines for which they; may serve as aids. The same item may be an accessory of more than one kind of instrument. 11. The same item may be an accessory of more than one kind of instrument. 11. It will be noticed that the entry we have to interpret includes parts" as well as "accessories" which are required for use in projectors or other cinematographic equipment. We think that the Andhra Pradesh High Court correctly held that the main use of the arc carbons under consideration was duly proved to be that of production of powerful light used in projectors in cinemas. The fact that they can also be used for search lights, signalling, stage lighting, or where powerful lighting for photography or other purposes may be required, could not detract from the classification to which the carbon arcs belong. That is determined by their ordinary or commonly known purpose or user. This, as already observed by us, is evident from the fact that they are known as "cinema arc carbons" in the market. This finding was enough, in our opinion, to justify the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that the goods under consideration are covered by the relevant entry No. 4." 6.1 Entry 132(iv) reads as under: "Utensils made of other metals and articles made of stainless steel" 7. From the above, it is clear that an article manufactured to serve as a part of a particular kind of apparatus would not cease to be covered by the intended entry simply because it is capable of being used for any other purpose. In the present case, the product in question is of stainless steel and shall fall under Entry 132(iv). We are of the view that the Tribunal has erred in classifying the product in question in the residuary clause i.e. Entry No. 195. Considering the customized manufacturing undertaken by the assessee, the product could not be put to any other use. 8. The reference is required to be answered accordingly. The question raised in both the Tax Appeals are answered in favour of the assessee. Appeals are allowed accordingly.