A.P Ravani, J.:— The applicant is doing business of manufacturing xerox machine which is also known as photocopying machine or photocopier. It is registered as a dealer under the appropriate provisions of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. The applicant-dealer preferred application under section 62 of the Act for determining the rate of tax payable on the sale of xerox machine Manufactured and sold by it under invoice No. 42 dated September 1, 1982. In the invoice, the article is described as photocopier machine or photostat copier. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax who heard the application came to the conclusion that the same was covered by entry 75 of Schedule II, Part A to the Act. Entry 75 at the relevant time read as follows:

“75. Photographic and other cameras and enlargers, lenses, paper, films and plates required for use therewith and spare parts and accessories thereof.”

2. The goods falling in entry 75 were subject to tax at the rate of 12 per cent. Against the said determination, the applicant preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The contention of the applicant-dealer before the Tribunal was that the goods should have been classified as falling in entry 16 of Schedule II, Part A or in the alternative in the residuary entry 13 of Schedule III to the Act. Relevant part of entry 16 pertains to machinery used in the manufacture of goods excluding machinery specified in any other entry in the Second Schedule or in any other Schedule. The Tribunal was of the view that neither entry 16 nor entry 13 could be applicable. The Tribunal was of the view that the goods will not fall even under entry 75, but would fall in entry 79. Since the goods were falling under entry 79, the tax payable would be at the rate of 15 per cent and therefore, the Tribunal issued notice in form 49 and afforded an opportunity to the dealer to make submission as to why the goods in question should not be classified as falling under entry 79. Entry 79 at the relevant time read as follows:

“79. Duplicating machines and teleprinters and tape-recorders including tape for use in connection therewith and spare parts and accessories thereof.”

3. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the xerographic machines sold by the applicant-dealer were falling in entry 79 and not in entry 75 as held by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. While deciding this question, the Tribunal followed its own decision rendered in Revision Application No. 118 of 1982 on the same day. The applicant-dealer felt aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal and submitted an application for making reference to this Court. The Tribunal has framed two questions and referred the same to this Court for its opinion. The questions and our answers are indicated hereinbelow:

Questions Answers 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that it had jurisdiction to decide the applicability of entry 79 of Schedule II, Part A to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, in deciding the appeal of the applicant? In affirmative. In favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that photocopier (xerox machine) sold under invoice No. 42, dated September 1, 1982, was exigible to sales tax under entry 79 of Schedule II, Part A to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, as it stood at the relevant time? In affirmative. In favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

4. It is an undisputed position that the proceedings before the Tribunal were under section 65 of the Act. The order which was the subject-matter of appeal was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and therefore appeal could be filed before the Tribunal as provided under section 65(1)(c). The scope of the powers of the appellate authority can be seen from the provisions of section 65(6) which, inter alia, provides that subject to such rules of procedures as may be prescribed, an appellate authority may pass such order on appeal as it deems just and proper. The expression “as it deems just and proper” indicates that the appellate authority can pass any order which in its opinion is just and proper. However, the only limitation in exercising this power is that the exercise of such power should be for the purpose of the Act. Such exercise of power cannot be de hors the purpose of the Act and for any other extraneous consideration. No such infirmity is pointed out to us. In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly decided the question and has rightly exercised its jurisdiction. Hence we answer question No. 1 as indicated in the column opposite to the question.

5. For the purpose of deciding this reference, two entries are relevant. Those relevant entries are entry 79 of Schedule II, Part A and entry 75 of Schedule II, Part A. Both these entries at the relevant time read as follows:

“75. Photographic and other cameras and enlargers, lenses, paper, films and plates required for use therewith and spare parts and accessories thereof.”

“79. Duplicating machines and teleprinters and tape-recorders including tape for use in connection therewith and spare parts and accessories thereof.”

6. So far as xerox machine is concerned, its principal and sole function is to make copies. Whether the copies are made by any mechanical process or by some other chemical or electronic process is immaterial. In copying machine some mechanical principle may be applied along with some use of chemistry. The copies which may come out by application of mechanical as well as by the principles of chemistry may be the product of duplicating machines, which may be commonly known as such. But if on the basis of the principles of photography and surface electrification some instrument is devised so as to obtain copies, such machine or instrument would be a duplicating machine because the essential function of the machine is to take out copies. It does not create any original material. The product is known not by the application of the basic principle with which it is manufactured. It is known by its function. The function of the xerox machine is to take out copies. Whether copies could be taken in contracted size or in enlarged size is immaterial. Simply because one of the additional features or facilities of the xerox machine is that copies could be taken in contracted size or in enlarged size, it does not cease to be a copying machine. The Tribunal has relied upon its own decision in the case of Kores (India) Ltd. (Revision Application No. 118 of 1982) decided on February 2, 1984. A copy of the said judgment is made part of the paper book of the reference. We have been taken through the entire judgment. The Tribunal has referred to the meaning of xerography as stated in Encyclopaedia Britannica, World Book Encyclopaedia and other literature. After referring to this literature, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that xerox machine would be duplicating machine or duplicator.

7. The learned counsel for the dealer submitted that even when the Tribunal applied the common parlance test while determining the nature and classification of a particular goods, the Tribunal has applied the technical meaning or dictionary meaning of the term xerographic machine. Therefore it is submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in applying the correct legal principle. The submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in the instant case, the dictionary meaning or the technical meaning of the term as understood by the people who deal in the commodity is the same. It is not the law that where the meaning of the term as understood by the people who deal in the commodity is in conformity with the technical meaning or dictionary meaning, the dictionary meaning should not be treated as supporting to the conclusion that may be arrived at by the adjudicating authority. All that the Tribunal has done is that even as per the literature upon which the learned counsel for the dealer has relied, supported the meaning as understood by the people who deal in the commodity. Therefore, the submission that the Tribunal has preferred the technical meaning or the dictionary meaning of the term and has discarded the common parlance test, has no merits and the same cannot be accepted.

8. The learned counsel for the dealer submitted that the literature produced before the Tribunal clearly showed that the dealer was dealing in duplicating machine and also in xerox machine. Even in the advertisement both the machines were separately shown as two different articles. Therefore it was submitted that xerox machine should have been classified as an item falling in photographic machine or photographic camera. This submission was sought to be buttressed by saying that the essential function of the photography is either to enlarge or to contract the original image. On this basis it was submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in applying the common parlance test.

9. Either the copy is enlarged one or contracted one is not material at all. Whether a copy is enlarged or contracted, it does not cease to be a copy. The essential and sole function of the xerox machine is to take out copies. It is one of the additional facilities available in xerox machine that a copy can be contracted or it can be enlarged. Simply because this devise is made part of the xerographic machine and thereby utility thereof is increased, it does not cease to be a copying machine. It is nobody's case that xerox machine is the same article as that of duplicating machine. The duplicating machine and xerox machine are two different articles. But both these articles, are falling in entry 79 of Schedule II, Part A. On the basis of the amendment of the entry made by the Legislature with effect from April 1, 1983, it was submitted that only from April 1, 1983, photocopiers have been included in entry 79. Before April 1, 1983, the expression relevant to duplicating machine only occurred in entry 79 and therefore xerox machine should not have been considered as falling in entry 79. The submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that by amendment, the Legislature has made its intention clear. The amendment is clarificatory in nature. By amendment at least as far as xerox machines are concerned, they are not sought to be brought in entry 79. They were already there in entry 79 as it stood prior to April 1, 1983. In relation to xerox machines, all that is done by the amendment is that the position which existed prior to April 1, 1983, has been made clear. That which was thereby necessary implication has been declared to be there by expressing the same in specific words. Therefore the submission made on the basis of the amendment of the entry with effect from April 1, 1983, has no merits and the same is rejected.

10. The learned counsel for the dealer submitted that entry 75 is the correct entry under which the xerox machine is to be taxed because the xerox machine is a photographic camera inasmuch as it enlarges the copies. If one reads entry 75 carefully, it is evident that the entry covers photographic and other cameras. It is not meant to cover the copying machine like xerox machines. Simply because one additional function of the xerox machine is to contract or enlarge the original writing, it cannot be said that xerox machine is a photographic camera or any other cameras falling in entry 75. So also even if the basic principle on which the xerox machine works is the principle of photography and surface electrification, it does not become photographic camera or other camera. We see no infirmity in the reasons given and conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal when it decided that xerox machine is covered by entry 79 of Schedule II, Part A to the Act.

11. In the result, the reference is answered as indicated in para 2 of this judgment. Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

12. Reference answered in the affirmative.