India - Annual Survey of Industries: 1983-84
Reference ID | IND-CSO-ASI-1983-84 |
Year | 1984 - 1985 |
Country | India |
Producer(s) | Central Statistics Office (Industrial Statistics Wing) |
Sponsor(s) | MOSPI, Government of India - GOI - |
Collection(s) | |
Metadata | Documentation in PDF |
Created on
Jul 26, 2016
Last modified
Sep 01, 2016
Page views
313025
- IDENTIFICATION PARTI
CULARS (B1,2,6,7) - B4-FIXED ASSETS
- B5-WORKING CAPITAL
- B6-OUTSTANDING LOAN
- B8A-EMPLOYMENT AND E
MOLUMENTS - B8A86-EMPLOYMENT AND
EMOLUMENTS - B8B-EMPLOYEES BENEFI
TS - B8B88-EMPLOYMENT AND
EMOLUMENTS - B10-OTHER INPUT ITEM
S - B11-NON-IND SERVICES
COST - B11C-NON-IND SERVICE
S COST - B12-OTHER OUTPUT
- B13-MATERIALS CONSUM
ED - B13-INDUSTRIAL COMPO
NENTS - B14-PRODUCTS AND BY-
PRODUCTS-1 - B14A-DISTRIBUTIVE EX
PENSES
Variable Groups
State Code
(State)
File: B11C-NON-IND SERVICES COST
File: B11C-NON-IND SERVICES COST
Overview
Type:
Discrete Format: numeric Width: 2 Decimals: 0 Range: 0-95 | Valid cases: 58987 Invalid: 0 Minimum: 11 Maximum: 54 Mean: 36.9 |
Questions and instructions
State Code
Value | Category | Cases | |
---|---|---|---|
11 | RAJASTHAN | 1630 | 2.8% |
12 | PUNJAB | 3060 | 5.2% |
13 | JAMMU & KASHMIR | 333 | 0.6% |
14 | HARYANA | 1779 | 3.0% |
15 | HIMACHAL PRADESH | 197 | 0.3% |
16 | DELHI | 1751 | 3.0% |
17 | CHANDIGARH | 241 | 0.4% |
21 | UTTAR PRADESH | 5118 | 8.7% |
22 | MADHYA PRADESH | 1930 | 3.3% |
31 | BIHAR | 2320 | 3.9% |
32 | ORISSA | 870 | 1.5% |
33 | WEST BENGAL | 3593 | 6.1% |
34 | ASSAM | 1157 | 2.0% |
35 | MANIPUR | 48 | 0.1% |
36 | TRIPURA | 289 | 0.5% |
37 | NAGALAND | 0 | 0.0% |
38 | MEGHALAYA | 35 | 0.1% |
39 | ARUNCHAL PRADESH | 1 | 0.0% |
41 | ANDHRA PRADESH | 6747 | 11.4% |
42 | TAMIL NADU | 7077 | 12.0% |
43 | KERALA | 1892 | 3.2% |
44 | PONDICHERRY | 145 | 0.2% |
45 | ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS | 29 | 0.0% |
51 | GUJARAT | 6473 | 11.0% |
52 | MAHARASHTRA | 8749 | 14.8% |
53 | KARNATAKA | 3327 | 5.6% |
54 | DAMAN & DIU | 196 | 0.3% |
Warning: these figures indicate the number of cases found in the data file. They cannot be interpreted as summary statistics of the population of interest.
Others
There are many state codes wrong but left as it is by recoding them as their values