T.D Sugla, J.:— This reference is at the instance of the assessee. It raises only one question of law which reads thus:

“On the facts of this case and the evidence produced and on a true and proper interpretation of entry 58(2) of Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that perkins inlet and exhaust valves and TMB inlet and exhaust valves sold by the opponent company under its two sales invoices, were not covered by the said entry?”

2. The assessee is a company. It, inter alia, manufactures valves which are used in the manufacture of the diesel engines. By an application dated 26th March, 1973, under section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short “the Act”), it requested the Commissioner of Sales Tax to determine the rate of tax applicable to two sales made by it. The particulars of sale were:

1. Bill No. 2349 dated 23rd January, 1973 for Rs. 4,603.92 in respect of the sale of perkins inlet and exhaust valves and

2. Bill No. 2222 dated 11th January, 1973 for Rs. 11,409.13 in respect of the sale of TMB inlet and exhaust valves.

3. It was stated in the application that the valves sold were components of diesel engines manufactured by M/s. Simpson and Co. Ltd., Madras, and that though the valves were generally used as components of diesel engines which were fitted into the trucks, they were interchangeable and could be used for various purposes such as to run launches, tractors, earth-moving machinery, etc. By his reply dated 29th May, 1973, the Commissioner informed the assessee of his views in the matter, viz., the question of alternative use of the valves in some other engines, would not arise because the said question would arise only in respect of other articles which are neither components nor spare parts of motor vehicles. Taking into account the assessee's further submissions vide application dated 25th June, 1973, the Commissioner, by his order dated 26th March, 1974, held that inlet and exhaust valves (part PI-001, PE-002, TI-201 and TE-205) fell within entry 58(2) of Schedule C to the Act so much so that sale of those parts was liable to sales tax at the rate of 12 per cent under section 8 of the Act. The assessee's appeal thereagainst succeeded before the Sales Tax Tribunal. The reason for the decision is found in paragraph 4 of the order which reads as under:

“It is clear to us that the valves in question were used in diesel engines. These diesel engines are used in Tata mercedes trucks and other trucks. But the question is whether from that it can be said that the valves are spare parts or components of the motor vehicles. We do not think that they can be said to be spare parts or components of motor vehicles. The appellant has produced the bills issued to other dealers. The learned Commissioner after referring to these sales invoices has observed that ‘the same in no way support the applicants' case, because the valves bear different part numbers'. It is true that they bear different numbers. We, however, find that these valves are used in the case of diesel engines, which engines can be used to the trucks and also to launches, tractors, etc. It is difficult to say how they can be said to be covered by entry 58(2) of Schedule C. We, therefore, find that they are liable to sales tax at 3 per cent and general sales tax at 3 per cent.”

4. The facts found by the Tribunal may briefly be stated once again. The valves manufactured by the assessee are components of diesel engines which are ordinarily used or fitted in the trucks. The diesel engines are also capable of being used in launches, tractors and/or earth-moving machinery. The relevant portion of entry 58 of Schedule C reads as under:

Entry 58 of Schedule C

Column (2): Description of goods:

“(1) Motor vehicles including motor cars, motor taxi-cabs, motor cycles, motor cycle combinations, motor scooters, motorettes, motor omnibuses, motor vans and motor lorries and chassis of motor vehicles but excluding tractors, whether on wheels or tracts.

(2) Component and spare parts of motor vehicles specified in subentry (1) of this entry and other articles (including rubber and other tyres and tubes and batteries) adapted for use as parts and accessories of such vehicles, not being such articles as are ordinarily also used otherwise than as such parts and accessories.”

5. In order to decide the controversy before us, the following questions, in our opinion, require consideration, namely:

“(i) What is meant by ‘component and spare parts’ of motor vehicles specified in sub-entry (1) of entry 58?

(ii) Whether the words ‘not being such articles as are ordinarily also used otherwise than as such parts and accessories’ qualify only other articles (including rubber and other tyres and tubes and batteries) adapted for use as parts and accessories immediately preceding these words or whether they qualify all the three items, namely, ‘components and spare parts…………………and other articles……………………’?

(iii) Whether diesel engines are components or spare parts of trucks? and

(iv) Assuming valves are components of diesel engines and diesel engines are components of the trucks, whether valves are or can be said to be components of trucks?”

6. As regards the first question, there cannot possibly be any serious dispute that in common parlance components are items or parts which are used in the manufacture of the final product and without which final product cannot be conceived of. Spare parts are those component parts which, in the course of use, wear and tear out frequently and are, therefore, required to be kept in readiness for use as and when necessary. Reference may usefully be made in this context to the plain dictionary meaning of these expressions as per the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary:

“‘Component’: Composing, making up, constituent, a constituent part or element.

‘Spare’: Not in actual or regular use at the time spoken of, but carried, held or kept in reserve for future use or to supply on emergency; additional, extra, that can be spared, dispensed with or given away, as being in excess of actual requirements, superfluous.”

7. The expression “component” came up for consideration before this Court in Commissioner Of Sales Tax v. Jayanand Khira & Co. Private Ltd., [1975] 36 STC 242. It was held:

“that in order to determine whether a particular article is a component part of another article, the correct test would be to look both at the article which is said to be the component part and the completed article and then come to the conclusion whether the first article is a component part of the whole or not. If one were to look at a complete and finished product, one might find so many parts which, by being fixed or otherwise made part of the said product, would lead one into a fallacious impression that they are component parts. One must first look at the article itself and consider what its uses are and whether its only use or its primary or ordinary use is as the component part of another article.”

8. The diesel engine is, thus, clearly a component of a truck, i.e, a motor vehicle. The Allahabad High Court decision in Agarwala Brothers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P, Lucknow, [1969] 23 STC 306, relied upon by the counsel for the assessee does not support the claim of the assessee as it was held in that case that

“An article is a component of another when it forms a constituent part of the other and is essential for completing it. That presumes necessarily that the article as such must in its condition and functioning be capable of use in the other.

Where the diesel engines sold by the petitioner could ordinarily be used for other purposes and it was only with the assistance of conversion kits that they could be used in motor vehicles, the diesel engines sold could not be said to be component parts of motor vehicles within the meaning of Notification No……………”

9. In the present case there is no dispute that the diesel engines as such are capable of being used in the trucks.

10. Shri Patil had referred to and relied upon the Allahabad High Court decisions in Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P v. Free India Cycle Industries, [1970] 26 STC 428 and in Shadi Cycle Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P, [1971] 27 STC 56 and this Court's decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jayanand Khira & Co., [1975] 36 STC 242, in support of his submission that diesel engines may not be components of motor vehicles. The decisions, it is seen, are distinguishable. The Mysore High Court decision in Kishindas Agencies v. State of Mysore, [1974] 33 STC 65, relied upon by Shri Patil, is also distinguishable inasmuch as the decision in that case was rendered in the context of explanation defining the word “component” artificially.

11. As regards the second and third questions, the main argument of Shri Patil was that the legislature in its wisdom qualified the word “articles” with the word “other” in the first part of sub-entry (2) and used the expression “such articles” in the latter part of the sub-entry. This, according to him, could only mean that the two items preceding in the sub-entry (2), i.e “component and spare parts”, were also articles and the expression “such articles” as distinct from “such other articles” qualified all the three; items, parts or articles referred to in the sub-entry. This submission is not tenable for more than one reason. In the first place there is already a word “and” between the words “components” and “spare parts” and another word “and” between “spare parts” and “other articles” (ignoring the intervening words for the present). This indicates that the first two items are different from other articles assuming the first two items are also articles. Secondly, the expression “other articles” is further qualified (again ignoring the bracketed portion which is not relevant) by the expression “adapted for use as parts and accessories of such vehicles”. This expression would obviously not apply to “component and spare parts” which need no adaptation for use in the motor vehicle. In our judgment, the expression “such articles” in the latter portion of sub-entry (2) preceding the words “not being”, therefore, refer to articles which are not capable of use as parts and accessories of motor vehicles as such though it may be possible to use them as parts or accessories after adapting them, and further, those articles are ordinarily used elsewhere also. Since the diesel engines in which the valves manufactured by the assessee are used are fitted in the trucks as such, i.e, without requiring any adaptation unlike the Allahabad case, we have to hold that the qualification “not being……………” does not apply to diesel engines which are components of trucks.

12. 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 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 Koel 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 The 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.

13. In view of the discussion above, the question of law referred is answered in the negative and in favour of the department. No order as to costs.

14. Reference answered in the negative.