JUDGMENT

BEG, J.:—The short question before us in these appeals by special leave, is whether sales of Arc Carbons; known as Cinema Arc Carbons", manufactured by the appellant Company, were rightly subjected to sales tax for two assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 on the ground that they fall under entry No. 4 of the Ist Schedule of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as `the Act ). This entry reads as follows:

"Cinematographic equipment, including cameras, projectors, and sound recording and reproducing equipment lenses, films and parts and accessories required for use therewith."

2. As indicated above, the very name of the Arc carbons, as commercial commodities, seems to attach the word "Cinema" to them because of the use to which they are generally put. The High Court referred to the fact that the appellants had not produced their account books to show that they had been purchased by person other than those who ran cinemas or for any other use. Of course, it is very difficult to identify a taxable commodity merely by the use to which it may be put. Nevertheless, it appears that the entry under consideration links the taxable object with its general or ordinary use. The taxing authorities were, therefore, compelled to consider the use which is generally made of the arc carbons. They had concluded that the common or ordinary use of the arc carbons was that they exuded the powerful light cast, through the projectors, on cinema screens.

3. It was pointed out that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the final departmental authority under the Act, had allowed an application for adducing expert evidence to determine the question whether arc carbons manufactured by the appellant company could be covered by the entry under consideration. It, however, appears that, before further evidence could be taken, at the appellate stage, on the subject, a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Smt. Nidmarthi Saraswathi Devi, T. R. C. No. 26 of 1962 (Decided on 9-8-1963 Andh Pra) was brought to the notice of the Tribunal. There, the High Court had held that such are carbons are covered by the 4th entry in the Ist Schedule of the Act. Hence, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal without taking further evidence.

4. In the High Court, two decisions cited on behalf of the appellants were: Deputy Commr. of Commercl. Taxes, Madhurai Division, Madhurai v. Ravi Auto Stores, (1968) 22 STC 172 (Mad) and State of Madras v. Indian Oxygen Ltd., (1968) 22 STC 476 (Mad). The High Court pointed out that in both these cases what was decided was whether "welding electrodes", considered by themselves, were "electrical goods" falling within entry 41 of Schedule 1 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. It was held, in these cases, that they were only copper rods which were melted by electrical power in the process of welding. Neither the use of the term "electrode" to describe them, sugesting a connection with electricity, nor their utilisation in a process involving application of electrical power could convert them into "electrical goods" as contemplated by the entry in the Madras Act. The High Court rightly observed that these decisions had no bearing whatsoever upon the very different entry in a schedule of a entirely different Act of a different State.

5. The same question has been argued before us with the help of some more cases to which the same criticism applies. The additional cases cited before us were Pashabhai Patel & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, (1964) 15 STC 32 (Bom) where it was held a "tractor" is not "agricultural machinery", within the meaning of entry 9 in Schedule B of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953; 1420 Agrawal Brothers v. Commr. of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, (1965) 16 STC 860 where it was also held that a "tractor", which is "nothing but a self-propelled vehicle capable of pulling a load" or "traction", does not acquire the character of "agricultural mac