Extra shift allowance for generators and motors upheld where exclusion for stationary plant was read narrowly.

Extra shift allowance was held admissible for generators and motors because the exclusion for specified electrical machinery had to be read in context and could not be extended by ejusdem generis. Generators were not specifically named in the disallowance, and the term "stationary plant" was held not to cover a generator, since it contains moving parts and is not comparable to the installations and fittings intended to be excluded from relief. The allowance was therefore consistent with the depreciation scheme and the revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether extra shift allowance was admissible in respect of generators and motors.

Analysis: The entry denying extra shift allowance to specified electrical machinery had to be construed in its own context. Generators were not specifically included among the disallowed items, and the principle of ejusdem generis did not justify treating them as falling within the restricted class. The expression "stationary plant" was held not to cover a generator, which consists of moving parts and is not comparable to the installations and fittings intended to be excluded from the relief. The allowance was therefore consistent with the purpose of depreciation and extra shift allowance.

Conclusion: Extra shift allowance was admissible on generators and motors, and the revenue's challenge failed.

---