Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"Power driven pumps (including motor pumps, turbo-pumps and mono block pump sets) for liquids whether or not fitted with measuring devices..." and the duth is 20 per cent ad valorem. It may be pointed out that Item 30-A was inserted in the First Schedule of the Central Excises & Salt Act by. Finance Act of 1969 and it was inserted in 1969. Though accoding to the Item excise duty at 20 per cent ad valorem was leviable, be a notification also issued simultaneously along with the insertion under the relevant provisions of the Act, complete exemption was granted to power driven pumps from excise duty. On March 15, 1972, the complete exemption was withdrawn and after withdrawal of the total exemption, effective excise duty of 10 per cent could be levied on power driven pumps. On June 17, 1977, excise duty was reduced from 10 per cent and on February 27, 1978, a notification was issued once again granting complete exemption from duty in respect of power dvieven pumps.

4. The contentions in theis case center round what is known as "column assembly" ans what is known as "discharge head assembly". It is the case of the petitioner that pumps manufactured by them are essentially bowl assembly. they are turbine pumps which work on the principle of building up a pressure head of water by movements of the vanes of the pump either in a verticle or in a horizontal filed. Mostly the pumps work in a vertical filed. These bowl assemblies are suspended from the column assemblies. Through column assembly water passes upward and in the central portion of the column assembly is a hollow tube through which a shaft is passed in order to supply mechanical motion to the vanes of tghe pump in the bowl assembly. the venes operate in the bowl assembly and all the vanes together are referred to as impellers which impel wate assembly are the discharge heads through which water is discharged and passed on to the distribution system and the shaft is moved either by a prime mover which may be an electric motor or any other motor which supplies mechanical energy for the purpose of rotating the shaft. According to the customs authorities, al the three assemblies, namely, bowl assembly which houses impellers, column assembly through which water or liquid goes up, and the shaft is passed for moving the impellers and discharge head assembly, are all parts of a power driven pump, where as according to the petitioner, is is only bowl assembly which houses impellers that is the pump or that is the power driven pump, the rest, namely, the column assembly and discharge head assembly being merely accessories of the pump. Over and above the column assembly and discharge head assembly, there is also a strainer which is fitted at the bottom of the pumping unit so as to strain put weeds and other impurities which might otherwise damage the vance of the impeller in the bowl assembly, There are also lubricating parts which help the machine moving smoothly as a result of lubrication. Sometimes,lubrication is merely by water. Though in the affidavit filed on behalf of ghe Government an attempt has been made to show that even the strainer and lubricating tanks are parts of acessories of a power driven pump, the controversy before us has centered round the column assembly and the discharged head assembly.

12. mr. Vakil for the respodents contende that when there are two possibe meanings of the word "pump" one which is contende for by the petitioner and the other which is referred to by the excise authorities, each of which meanings is possible, the High Court acting under its juridiction under Articles 226 should not interfere by preferring one menaing to another. In our opinion, there are no two menaings possible so far as a power driven pump is concerned. What is exempted is accesories of a power driven pump and what is excisable is the power driven pump. thereis only one meaning of "power driven pump", namely, the bowl assembly of the types of the pump before us. Under these circumstances, this contention of Mr. Vakil cnanot be accepted. In Lachandan's evidences particularly the common parlance or commerce parlance from the point of view of persons familiar with the subject matter, has emerged, and it is clear from his evidence which we have reproduced completely in the earlier part of this judgment, that to person in the trade who know about the subject, it is only the bowl assembly which constitutes thepump so far as the pumps manufactured by the petitioner are concerned.

15. Under these circumstances, once what a power driven pump is supposed to do is properly understood, it is obviousthat column assenbly and the discharge head asembly and other objects referred to in th eorder dated items 1 and 5 as those which are clkaimed as acessorties by the petitioner, are in fact accesories because none of those objects performs the esentail function of converting mechanical energy of the impeller into kinetic energy of the liquid in quesxtion. Hence, the order of the Assistant Collector dated June 16, 1976, and the order of the Central government in revision dated march 31, 1978, both proceeded on wrong fooring altogether, when they treated the column assembly and the discharge head assembly as components or essential elements of power driven pumps manufactured by the petitioner. It is obvious that all those parts which were named as accesories by the petitioner were not performing the essential function of converting mechanical energy into kinetic energy of the liquid and therefore those parts which wer4e claimed as acessories by the petitioner as shown in the order of June 16, 1976, were in fact accesories. hence this special civil application is allowed and the orders dated June 16, 1976 and march 31, 1978 respectively passed by the second and the third respondents are quashed ans set aside. The amount of Rs. 32,74,127.82 paise and other amounts of excise duty collected in respect of such accessories during the pendency of this petition are directed to be refunded to the petitioner, this amount being the amount of excise duty collected by the respondents and paid under protest by the petitioner in respect of sale of accessories effected along with the sale of power driven pumps when the prices of such accessories had been shown separately in the invoices of the petitioner.