Judgment

Ruma Pal, J.—The respondent manufactures electronic cash registers. In addition to the usual functions of a cash register, the respondent’s models perform various other functions including: i) Billing and cash memo printing with alpha numeric print out ii) Cashier-wise cash collection summary and analysis. iii) Daily and periodical item-wise analysis iv) Stock analysis v) Re-order level analysis vii) Salesman-wise sales analysis; etc.

2. The question is whether such cash registers are classifiable under Entry 90 or under Entry 97(b) of Part II, Schedule (c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.

3. The two competing entries read as ­follows:—

Entry 90. “Tabulating calculating cash registering, indexing, card punching franking, addressing, cheque writing, statistical paper threading and data processing (other than computers) machines and components, parts and accessories of such machines.

Entry 97(a) “Computer and components parts and accessories thereof and tapes spools and tapes spools and discussed therewith and

(b) Electronic systems, instruments apparatus and appliances other than those specified elsewhere and components parts and accessories of any of them.”

4. The Departmental Authorities contend that the goods are classifiable under tariff Entry 90. The respondent assessee submits that the relevant entry is 97(b). The Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal accepted the department’s submission on the grounds that the very name of the machine namely “Bradma Cash Track Electronic Cash Registers” would prima facie support the conclusion that it was covered by Entry 90, that admittedly the machine was primarily performing the functions which are normally carried out by a cash registering machine and that the additional functions performed by the respondent’s models were merely subsidiary to such primary function. It was held that Entry 90 being the specific Entry dealing with Cash Registering Machines, would apply rather than Entry 97(b) which was the general entry.

5. At the instance of the Department, the following questions were referred to the High Court by the Tribunal for its decision under Section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959:—

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that “electronic cash register “sold by the applicant was covered by entry No. 90 of Schedule C part II and not by entry No. 97(b) of Schedule C Part II appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959?

2. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the various functions carried on by the machine were only subsidiary functions and that, therefore, the cash register was essentially only a cash register and could not be considered as an electronic system, appliance or instrument?”

6. The High Court answered the questions framed in favour of the assessee. Contrary to the opinion expressed by the Tribunal, the High Court was of the view that Entry 90 was the general entry and Entry 97(b) the special entry. Since there was no controversy that the electronic registers sold by the assessee were operated electronically, the High Court thought that it would more appropriately fall under Entry 97(b) and not under Entry 90. In arriving at this conclusion, the High Court ­relied upon a Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Apex Agency; (1997) 104 S.T.C. 44.

7. We are of the opinion that the High Court was wrong. Both the Tribunal and the High Court commonly enunciated the principle that a specific entry would override a general entry. In addition we would add, and as has been held in CCE Vs. Wood Craft Products Limited 1995 (3) SCC 454, 462, resort has to be had to the residuary heading only when a liberal construction by the specific heading cannot cover the goods in question. The language of Entry 97 (b) clearly shows, by use of the phrase “other than those specified elsewhere” that it is not only a residuary entry but also t