R. Sudhakar, J.:— This tax case (revision) is preferred by the Revenue aggrieved against the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai.

2. The issue that raised by the Revenue in this revision is as to whether the goods sold by the respondent/assessee is exigible to tax at the rate of four per cent, as goods falling under Sl. No/22 of entry 68 of Part B of the First Schedule or falling under entry 69 of Part C of the First Schedule of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, (hereinafter called as “the TNVAT Act, 2006”) as claimed by the Revenue.

3. The respondent/assessee, who is a dealer in computers and spares, was assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 21,50,50,767 and 21,50,50,767, respectively for the assessment year 2006-07 tinder section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. On verification of the assessment records; the assessing officer found that the deale had made sale of routers at the rate of four per cent, claiming that the commodity is an information technology product. The assessing officer rejected the claim stating that the router is an external device and there was no specific entry for the commodity router in the First Schedule to the TNVAT Act; 2006 and hence the commodity router was liable to be assessed to tax at 12 5 per cent, treating it as an unclassified item under entry 69 of Part G of the First-Schedule (Commodity Code No. 301) to TNVAT Act, 2006. Accordingly, the assessing officer demanded tax at 12.5 per cent, together with penalty. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, who relying upon the definition of “router.” from Wikipedia and its nature and use in computer data transfer, came to the conclusion that router is a computer peripheral and a device used in conjunction with the computer and therefore, falls under Sl. No. 22, entry. 68 of Part B of the First Schedule. For better clarity, the relevant portion of the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner reads as follows:

“As regards this router a definition from Wikipedia is extracted as below:

‘A router is a device that forwards data packets between computer network, creating an overlay intemetwork. A router is connected to two or more data lines from different networks. When a data packer comes in on one of the lines, the router reads the address information in the packet to determine its ultimate destination. Then, using information in its routing table or routing policy, it directs the packet to the next network on its journey. Routers perform the “traffic directing” functions on the internet. A data packet is typically from one router are home and small, office routers that simply pass data, such as web pages and email, between the home computers and the owner's cable or DSL modem, which connects to the internet through an ISP. However more sophisticated routers range from enterprise routers, which, connect large business or ISP networks up to the powerful core routers that forward data at high speed along the optical fiber lines of the internet backbone.’

Computer peripherals are equipments are devices in a computer system that is not actually inside the computer itself and it includes the key board, visual display, unit, printer, floppy disk, cables, manuals etc., and such routers when used in a local area network (LAN) or wide area network (WAN) they should be placed only on such cables, for traffic diverting of signals to the desired place and hence this one should be a product invisible in ‘Sl. No. 17 electronic integrated circuits and micro assemblies or computer system and peripherals under Sl. No. 22, entry 68 of Part B of the Second Schedule’. By all means this router is nothing but a computer peripherals which is eligible for four percent of concessional rate. In view of that the correct rate of tax to be levied is only at four per cent, and not at 12.5 per cent. Hence the tax levied on the turnover of Rs. 50,41,966 at 12.5 per cent, is deleted and refixed at Rs. 2,01,678 at four per cent. The balance of 8.5 per cent, amounting to Rs. 4,28,557 is given as a relief to the appellants.”

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, the Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that, router, is a network device that forwards data from one network to another and it is used for transmitting computer data from one area to another. The Tribunal relied upon the Microsoft Dictionary to define the word “computer peripheral”. It has been clearly held by the Tribunal that based on the definition, a computer peripheral was often, but not partially or completely dependent on the host and it expands the capability of the computer, but it did not form part of the core computer architecture. Further, the Tribunal while upholding the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, held as follows:

“7. It is not in dispute the ‘router’ is a network device that forwards packet from one network to another. On the other hand, it can be said that it is a network device for transmitting computer data from one area to another. It is relevant to note that according to the definition quoted by the State Representative from Microsoft Dictionary in his written arguments computer peripherals means as follows:

‘A peripheral is a device that is connected to a host computer, but not part of it. It expands the host's capabilities but does not form part of the core computer architecture. It is often, but not always, partially or completely dependent on the host.

A peripheral is generally defined as any auxiliary device such as a computer mouse, keyboard, hard drive, etc., that connects to and works with the computer in some way. Other examples of peripherals are expansion cards. Graphics: cards, computer printers, image scanners, tape drives, microphones, loud speakers, webcams and digital cameras.’

At the same time, it is also relevant to note that according to section 2(j) of the Information Technologies Act, 2000, computer network means as follows:

(j) ‘Computer network’ means the interconnection of one or more computer through—

(i) the use of satellite, microwave, terrestrial line or other communication media; and

(ii) terminals or a complex consisting of two or more interconnected computers whether or not the interconnection is continuously maintained.

As per the definition above, a computer peripheral is often, but not always, partially or completely dependent on the host and it expands the capability of the computer but it does not form part of the core computer architecture. Therefore, a computer peripheral need not be a device or an accessory attached to the computer or computer system. From the above, it is obvious that a ‘router’ is a computer network device that transmits data from one area to another for the use through computer systems. On the other hand, it is clear that the ‘router’ expands the capability of the computer but does not form part of the core computer architecture. In the circumstances, it is held that a ‘router’ is a device coming under computer peripherals as information technologies ‘product. Sl. No. 22 of entry 68 includes computer system, peripherals parts and also electronic diaries. The lists of information technology products mentioned in entry 68, has not specifically mentioned the word ‘router’, but it is a part coming under computer peripherals and parts. The judgments relied by the learned counsel for the respondent are also not of much help in this regard and are directly applicable to the facts of the case. In the above circumstances, it is held” that the finding of the first appellate authority that ‘route’ is nothing but a computer peripheral which is eligible for concessional rate of four per cent, is sustainable and it does not require’ any interference. The State appeal lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed and the point is answered accordingly.”

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed the present tax case (revision).

6. We Have heard learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and perused the materials placed before this court.

7. The ‘contention of the assessee is that the goods sold by the assessee, namely, router, will fall under entry 68 of Part B of the First Schedule to the TNVAT Act, 2006; which reads as follows:

“68. Information technology products as notified by the Government:

(The following goods have been notified as falling under this item by Notification V. (G.O Ms. No. 3), CT & R(B-1) (II (1)/CTR/(a-6)/2007; dated 1st January 2007:—

1 to 21…

22. Computer systems and peripherals, electronic diaries—

(a) Computer systems, peripherals and parts.

(b) Electronic diaries.”

8. The contention of the Department is that the goods sold by the assessee will fell under entry 69 of Part C of the First Schedule, which reads as follows:

“(69) Any other goods, not specified in any of the Schedules. (Code No. 301)”

9. We find that the definition “peripheral”, as has been conduded by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner as well as by the Tribunal, is dearly an ancillary device of a computer, similar to that of key board, floppy disk or hard drive, which enables the transmission of data from one computer to another or one area to another. The definition of the term “peripheral” as per the dictionary meaning is as follows:

“lying at the outside or away from the central part; outer; external.”

10. It is not in dispute that “router” is a device falling outside the main part, namely, computer and it is partially or completely dependent on the host and expands the capabilities of the computer and it does not form part of the core architecture. What are all computer peripherals have not been defined in serial No. 22 of entry 68 of Part B of the First Schedule to the TNVAT Act, 2006. Therefore, whatever goods, which are falling within the definition of “peripheral” would be entitled to such a benefit. We find that “router”, from the nature of its use in conjunction with this computer as has been defined by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal based on relevant computer related dictionary and data, is a peripheral of a computer. It is also held by the Tribunal that “router” is a computer network device that transmits data from one area to another and expands the capabilities of the computer, hence, it does not form part of core computer architecture. Therefore, we find that the Appellate. Deputy Commissioner as well as the Tribunal are justified in holding that the goods sold by the assessee, namely, router, is a computer peripheral, falls under serial No. 22, entry 68 of Part B of the First Schedule to the TNVAT Act,. 2006.

11. Being pure question of fact, we find no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this revision. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal stands confirmed and this tax case (revision) stands dismissed. No costs.