Automobile spare parts test extends beyond propulsion necessity, covering goods used for effective and convenient vehicle operation.

Items such as door locks, flexible channels, shield glasses, side glasses, door laces, horns, hub caps, mirrors and speedometers were treated as automobile spare parts rather than mere accessories. The Court read the concessional notification for automobile spare parts by focusing on the practical role of the goods in the effective and convenient use of a motor vehicle, not only on whether they were indispensable for propulsion. Relying on earlier decisions, it accepted that articles need not be strictly necessary to make the vehicle run to fall within the reduced-rate notification, and the assessee was entitled to concessional tax treatment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the goods in question, namely items such as door locks, flexible channels, shield glasses, side glasses, door laces, horns, hub caps, mirrors and speedometers, were automobile spare parts eligible for concessional tax, or merely accessories taxable at the higher rate.

Analysis: The Court compared the competing approaches of the appellate authority and the revisional authority and examined the scope of the statutory notification granting a reduced rate for automobile spare parts. It held that the relevant items were not to be judged only by whether they were indispensable for the vehicle to run, but by their practical role in the effective and convenient use of the motor vehicle. Relying on earlier decisions, the Court accepted that such articles, though not strictly necessary for propulsion, could still constitute automobile parts or spare parts within the notification.

Conclusion: The goods were held to be automobile spare parts covered by the concessional notification, and the assessee was entitled to tax at the reduced rate.

---