M. C. AGARWAL, J. - (1.) These revision petitions under section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, are directed against a common order dated October 20, 1993, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Meerut, by which it dismissed the revisionist's second appeals against the provisional assessments for the months of February, 1991, June, 1990, March, 1991, September, 1990, January, 1991, November, 1990, December, 1990, July, 1990, August, 1990 and October, 1990, respectively. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel and have perused the materials placed before me. The revisionist is a manufacturer of rims for cycles and the only question agitated in these revisions is whether the cycle rims are declared goods under clause (iv) (xiv) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. According to section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, a restriction is placed on the rate of sales tax that can be charged by the States on the sales of goods which have been declared to be of special importance in the inter-State trade or commerce under section 14 of that Act. By virtue of section 15 (a) of the Central Sales Tax Act the tax payable under any State law in respect of any sale or purchase of the declared goods any State shall not exceed four per cent of the sale or purchase price thereof and such tax shall not be levied at more than one stage. The assessing officer while making provisional assessments has treated the rims as cycle parts and taxed the same under the U. P. Sales Tax Act at the rate of eight per cent. Under the aforesaid clause of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act "wheels, tyres, axles and wheel sets" have been declared as goods of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce under the main head "iron and Steel". The contention raised on behalf of the revisionist is that the rims which are used in the wheels of cycles are themselves wheels and are, therefore, declared goods under the Central Sales Tax Act and cannot be subjected to tax at a rate exceeding four per cent. All the authorities below have consistently held that the rims are not wheels and, therefore, they do not come under the category of "declared goods". The word "wheel" has not been defined in the Act, and, therefore, we have to take help from extraneous sources for determining whether the cycle rims manufactured by the revisionist come within the scope of "wheels". Learned counsel for the revisionist referred to several dictionaries to find out the meaning of "wheel". According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, "wheel" means a circular frame of hard material that may be solid, partly solid or spoked, and that is capable of turning on an axle. On the other hand, "rim" has been stated to mean the outer part of a wheel joined to the hub usually by spokes. According to Random's House Dictionary, "wheel" means a circular frame or disc arranged to revolve on an axle as on or in vehicles, machinery, etc. According to Oxford English Dictionary, Volume VIII, "rim" means a peripheral portion or outer ring of a wheel connected with the nave or boss by spokes or by a web. According to the same dictionary, Volume XII, a 'wheel" means a circular frame of wood, metal or hard substance with spokes radiating from the central part or nave attached or capable of being attached. Thus, according to the dictionary meaning, a "rim" and a "wheel" are different things and a rim can become a wheel only when by using spokes, hub and/or other things, it is made capable of revolving on an axle. The rim manufactured by the revisionist is, admittedly, a circular thing made of iron and steel which has no hub and is not capable of revolving on an axle without spokes, etc. , being fitted thereto. If such a circular frame with no arrangement for revolving on an axle could be called a "wheel" then a rubber tyre or an inflated rubber tube could also be treated as a "wheel", but nobody calls these things as wheels. None of the dictionaries says that the words "wheel and rim" are synonymous of each other and a perusal of the definitions, as stated above, clearly indicates that the two are different and a rim wherever it is used is only a component of a "wheel". For example, a cycle wheel would be complete only when the rim manufactured by the revisionist is fitted with spokes and hub, etc. Another method of finding out the meaning of the words which are not defined in an Act is to ascertain how the people who have to deal with such goods treat them. In Collector of Central Excise v. Krishna Carbon Paper Co. [1989] 72 STC 280; 1989 UPTC 188, the honourable Supreme Court held that where no definition is provided in the statute itself for ascertaining the correct meaning of a fiscal entry, reference to a dictionary is not always safe. The correct guide in such a case is the context and the trade meaning. The trade meaning is one which is prevalent in that particular trade where the goods is known or traded. If a special type of goods is the subject-matter of fiscal entry then that entry must be understood in the context of that particular trade bearing in mind that particular word. The same view was taken in Collector of Customes v. Swastic Woollens (P) Ltd. [1989] 72 STC 201 (SC ). In this case before us the dealer itself describes the commodity in question as cycle rim. It is common knowledge that cycle rim is a commercially known part of a cycle and is known as rim and only an ignorant or careless person may describe a rim as a wheel. The revisionist has not placed any material before any of the authorities below to show that cycle rim is known as a wheel in the cycle trade circles. It is not shown that ever in the bills raised by the revisionist on its customers or in the orders placed by the customers on the revisionist, rims have been described as cycle wheels. Learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on a single Judge judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Ashok Tyres [1988] 68 STC 123 in which the Tribunal's finding that a cycle rim comes within the scope of "wheel" within the meaning of the aforesaid entry in the Central Sales Tax Act was held to be justified. It was observed that there is no other competing entry and the scope of entry (xiv) is wide enough to include 'rims" within its ambit. I have gone through this judgment and for the reasons stated above, I express my regrets for not being able to agree with the same. As stated above, a "wheel" must be capable of revolving on an axle. The cycle rim is, admittedly, not capable of revolving on an axle by itself without being fitted with spokes and hubs. In commercial circles also, the cycle rim is not shown to be understood as a "wheel" and, in my opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the rims sold by the dealer were not wheels within the meaning of section 14 (iv) (xiv) of the Central Sales Tax Act. It was contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that if the rim is a declared goods under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act then that under the State Act, it cannot be taxed as a cycle part. This contention is not wholly correct. Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act only places certain restrictions on the rate of tax and the stages of tax and the State law cannot place a larger burden on the tax-payers, but the categorisation of the commodity concerned under the State law is relevant for determining the category under which the commodity falls. If under the State law, the rate of tax for that commodity is lower than four per cent, then the lower rate will have to be charged. If the State law levies tax at several stages of sales then in terms of section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, in respect of declared goods, tax will have to be restricted only to one stage. The classification of goods under the State law, therefore, is not always irrelevant. No other point was pressed in these revisions. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no force in these revisions and the same are hereby dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. Petitions dismissed. .;