1993 P T D 223

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Ajmal Mian and Saleem Akhtar, JJ

Messrs PREMIER MACHINERY WORKS, KARACHI

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Civil Appeals Nos. 68-K of 1979,110-K and 111-K of 1987, decided on 03/07/1991.

(On appeal from the judgments of the High Court of Sindh dated 8-2-1978 in Constitutional Petition No.26 of 1969 and the Lahore High Court, dated 8-10-1979 in TR No.155 of 1971 and TR No.76 of 1972).

(a) Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)---

----S.7---Notification No. 3 ST dated 15th March, 1954---Customs Notification No.14-C dated 15th March, 1954---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the words "transmission gear" meant transmission system which would include ell the paraphernalia required for transmitting power including conduit pipes which encase the transmission cable or wire and also the interpretation of items (i), (iv) & (v) of Custom Schedule; mentioned in the Customs Notification No.14-C, dated 15th March, 1954.

(b) Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)-

----S.17---Reference to High Court---Jurisdiction of High Court---Question of fact---Where any question opens with the words "whether on the facts and circumstances of the case" or similar phraseology the findings of fact of the Appellate Tribunal are accepted and on the basis of these findings the question has to be answered.

Jurisdiction of High Court under section 17 of the Act has its own limitations and is completely different from appeal. The High Court has to answer the question, which has been referred to it. Furthermore unless the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal is specifically challenged in reference it has to be accepted by the High Court. In the present case the question referred by the Tribunal does not challenge the finding of fact. The question has been framed in a manner, which accepts the finding of fact as determined by the Tribunal and excludes any challenge to such finding. The appellants seek the interpretation of the Notification on the basis of facts and circumstances as found by the Tribunal. Held, where any question opens with the words "whether on the facts and circumstances of the case" or similar phraseology the findings of the Tribunal are accepted and on the basis of these findings the question has to be answered.

In the present case the High Court while considering the question referred by the Tribunal have ignored this aspect of the case and entered into the correctness of the finding of the Tribunal by observing that it is based on mere conjuncture and without any evidence to support it. Such a conclusion could not have been drawn by the High Court as no such question was referred to it. Therefore, the material mistake, which has occurred in approaching the question is that first the High Court set aside the finding then came to their own conclusion in the light of the findings arrived by it. Such procedure was not warranted and is not permissible in cases where reference has been made under section 17 of the Sales Tax Act. Therefore, the question should have been considered on the basis of the finding of the Tribunal which had not been challenged and has been reproduced above.

(c) Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)---

----Notification No. ST 3, dated 15th March, 1954---Customs Notification No.14-C, dated 15th March, 1954---Exemption---Item (v) of Schedule mentioned in Customs Notification No.14-C, dated 15th March, 1954 covers all such conduit pipes which are used for transmission of power in conjunction with the machinery defined in item (i) of the said Schedule.

Beginner's Guide to Electric Wiring by F. Guillou & Gray, 2nd Edn., p.83; Commissioner of Income tax, West Bengal v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191; Webster's New International Dictionary; Shorter Oxford Dictionary, The New Universal Encyclopaedia, p.3001; Glossary of Terms used in Electrical Engineering; M/s. Usman Glass Sheet Factory Limited v. Sales Tax Officer PLD 1971 SC 205; Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Karachi and others v. M/s. Abdul Majeed Khan and others 1977 SCMR 371; Universal Dictionary of the English Language edited by Henry Cecil Wyid; Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language unabridged edited by Philip Babcock Gove; Words and Phrases Legally Defined, 2nd Edn., Vo1.I; Report of the Machinery Committee 1922; Pakistan Customs Tariff Guide published under the direction of the Central Board of Revenue updated up to 31-12-1949 CBR Customs Ruling 7 of 1929; Me Graw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms; Nazir Ahmad v. Pakistan PLb 1970 SC 453 and Glossary of Terms Used in Electrical Engineering, Section 5 ref.

A. A. Fazeel, Advocate, Supreme Court for petitioner (in C.A. No.68-k of 1979).

Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court, M.S. Ghoury and Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocates-on-Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 11th June, 1991.

JUDGMENT

SALEEM AKHTAR, J: --This judgment will dispose of all the three appeals as the questions of law involved are common. CA. No.68-K of 1979 arises from the judgment of the High Court of Sindh. In C.As. Nos.110-K of 1987 and 111-K of 1987 judgment of the Lahore High Court has been challenged in which the impugned judgment of the High Court of Sindh has been relied upon.

2. In CA. No.68-K of 1979, which is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh the petitioners are manufacturers of conduit pipes. During the assessment year 1954-55 they did not file any return of Sales Tax as they claimed exemption by virtue of Notification No.3 of 15th March, 1954 read with Customs Notification No.14(c), dated 15th March, 1954. The Sales Tax Officer, however, levied sales tax of Rs.15,136 on the estimated sale of Rs.180,000. The petitioners appealed to the Assistant Appellate Commissioner of Sales-tax who mistakenly relied on an earlier repealed Sales-tax Notification No.8, dated 27th June, 1951 and allowed the appeal. The respondent filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal but did not succeed. The finding of the Tribunal was as follows: -----

"Conduit is a pipe-shaped thing which is used to cover the wirings and its use appears necessary in conjunction with the main machinery for safer and proper transmission of electric energy. The word `conduit' is not specifically mentioned in the aforesaid schedule which, however, is more exhaustive of items intended to be exempted from Sales-tax than the superseded Notification in which this word was used specifically. In our view the article in question appears fully covered by item (v) of the aforesaid schedule and is, therefore, exempt from the payment of sales-tax thereon."

3. The Department applied under section 17(1) of the Sales Tax Act for reference of the question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal to the High Court but it was refused. Thereafter the respondent moved an application under section 17(2) of the Act and the High Court directed the Tribunal to refer the question. Accordingly the following question was referred:---

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the conduit pipe falls within the meaning of items (v) and (vi) of the Customs Notification No.14(c), dated 15th March, 1954, and is consequently exempt from tax by virtue of Sales Tax Notification No.3 dated 15th March, 1954."

The High Court answered in the negative with the following observation:----

"A conduit in the electrical trade means a tube in which electric wires are encased for their protection and safety in the distribution of electricity and are commonly used in wiring in domestic house and other buildings for purposes of either concealed wiring in the walls or for surface wiring. But the conduit pipe itself does pot and transmit electric energy which is transmitted by the insulated wires which are encased in the conduit tube. In the Beginner's Guide to Electric Wiring by F. Guillou & Gray, 2nd Edition, page 83, it is stated that in a conduit system the pipes made of steel or PVC encasing the insulated wires, are joined or screwed to form lengths running into metal junction boxes and boxes that receive switches, ceiling roses, fuse-boards, socket-outlets as per boxed and other fittings and electricity is thus distributed to various points of consumption. Conduit pipe, as such, is not a mechanical or electrical control and transmission gear or mechanism which is adapted for use in conjunction with the main machinery of item (i). The Tribunal has, therefore, misdirected itself in holding that a conduit pipe is necessary for `transmission' of electric energy. More correctly, a conduit pipe is intended for the reception of cables for the distribution of electric energy. The Tribunal, therefore, erred in holding as a fact that the conduit pipe manufactured by the respondent was a `transmission gear'. Its finding is a mere conjecture without any evidence to support it. Even if, as suggested by Mr. Athar, learned counsel for the respondent, this alleged finding of fact has been accepted by the Department, it would not be binding on the High Court. As observed by the Indian Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191 at page 195, the burden of proving the necessary facts in order to entitle the assessee to claim exemption is on the assessee. It was, therefore, for the respondent to establish before the Sales Tax Officer or the Appellate Authorities the necessary facts to prove its contention that conduit pipe was a mechanical or electrical control and transmission gear."

4. Leave was granted to consider whether the words `transmission gear' mean transmission system which would include all the paraphernalia required for transmitting power including conduit pipes which encase the transmission cable or wire and also the interpretation of items (i) and (v) of the Customs Schedule referred above.

5. In CA. No.110-K/89 and CA. No.111-K/87 judgment of the Lahore High Court passed in Sales Tax Reference under section 17(1) of the Sales. Tax Act in which the following questions were referred by the Appellate Tribunal in both the cases relating to the same assessee in respect of assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1965-66.

"(1) Assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63 (CA. No.111-K of 1987):

Whether on the facts and in, the circumstances of the case the conduit pipes manufactured by the assessee are exempt from the levy of sales tax by virtue of, Notification No.14-C dated the 15th March, 1954, read with Sales Tax Notification No.3-ST of the same date.

(2) Assessment year 1965-66:

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the conduit pipe falls within the meaning of items (v) and (vi) of the Customs Notification No.14-C, dated 15-3-1954 and are consequently exempt from Sales Tax by virtue of Sales Tax Notification No.3-ST, dated 15-3-1954 (CA. No.110-K/87) "

The main judgment of the Lahore High Court was delivered in respect of assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63, subject-matter' of CA. No.111-K of 1987 which was followed in the case relating to assessment year 1965-66 (CA. No.ii0-K/87). The appellants are manufacturer of conduit pipes. They claimed exemption from sales tax under Notification No.14-C, dated 15-3-1954 which was ultimately allowed by the Appellate Tribunal relying on its order passed in appeal filed in the case of Premier Machinery Works, Karachi, which is subject-matter of CA. No.68-K of 1979. In these cases the finding of the Tribunal was the same as reproduced in paragraph 2 of the judgment. In this regard the Lahore High Court observed as follows:---

"In these reference applications the Commissioner of Sales Tax has not questioned the order of the Tribunal with regard to its finding that the tube-well pipes are exempt from the levy of sales tax but has sought reference in respect of conduit pipes only.

By virtue of Notification No.3-ST dated the 15th March, 1954, issued under section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, all such goods as are specified in the Schedule to the Government Notification No.14-C, dated the 15th March, 1934, are exempted from the levy of sales tax. The Tribunal's finding was that conduit pipes fell under item (v) of the said Schedule and, therefore, no tax could be levied on the manufacture thereof. In coming to this conclusion the Tribunal had relied on an earlier decision of its another Bench in STA No. 14 of 1960-61 "

As question involved in these cases was the same as in CA. No.68-K/79. Leave was granted in the same terms.

6. The entire controversy involves interpretation of items No.(i), (v) and (vi) of the Schedule. The Notification is reproduced as follows:---

"No. 3-ST.----In exercise of the powers conferred by section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 (III of 1951) and in supersession of this Ministry's Sales Tax Notifications Nos. 8 and 9 dated 27th June, 1951 and the 30th August. 1952. respectively the Central Government is pleased to exempt from the tax payable under the said Act all such goods as are specified in the Schedule to this Ministry's Customs Notification No.14-C dated the 15th March, 1954.

This exemption shall not affect the tax payable on the raw materials from which such goods are produced or manufactured.

?????????? This Notification shall take effect on and from the 15th day of March, 1954.

No.14-C.---In exercise of the powers conferred by section 23 of the sea Customs Act, 1878 (VIII of 1878), the Central Government is pleased to direct that with effect on and from the 16th March, 1954, the articles specified in the second column of the Schedule hereto annexed, shall be exempt from so much of the customs duty leviable thereon under the First Schedule to the Tariff Act, 1934 (XXXII of 1934) as is in excess of the rate specified in .the third column of the said Schedule.

The Schedule

Number of the item in the First Schedule to the Tariff Act, 1934, under which the articles are accessable.	Description of the articles	Rate of duty
Appropriate items of the Tariff:	(i) Machinery all sorts, not otherwise specified, operated by power of any description (including tractors other than agricultural such as is used in any industrial process, including the generation,? transmission and distribution of power, or used in processes directly connected with the extraction of minerals and timber, construction of buildings, roads, dams, bridges? and similar structures, and the manufacture of? goods. (ii) Component parts including spare parts of machinery as defined in item (i) above, which have been given some special shape, size and quality essential for the use as such. (iii) Apparatus and appliance not otherwise??????????????????????????????????????? specified, specially adapted for use in?????????????????????????????????????? conjunction with Machinery so defined in item(i) above. (iv) Component parts including spare parts of????????????????????????? ??????????????machinery so defined in its (iii) above, which?????????????????????????????????????? have been given some special shape, size and??????????????????????????????????????? quality essential for the use as such. (v) Mechanical and electrical control and?? transmission gear adapted for use in?? conjunction with machinery as defined in item (i) above, including belting all types designed for use with machinery, driving chains, switch? boards, switches and/or fuses assembled in? iron-clad cases, copper wires and cables?? insulated with impregnated paper, electrical? earthenware and porcelain, not otherwise specified. ???????????????????????????????????? ?(vi) Component parts including spare parts of?????????????????????????????????????? goods enumerated in item (v) above."????????????????????????????????????	5%

7. At the outset we may point out that the proceedings in these appeals arise from the assessment made under the Sales Tax Act. The matter went up to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal where after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case while holding that petitioners were entitled to exemption gave a finding of fact that "conduit is a pipe shape thing which is used to cover the wiring and its use appears necessary in conjunction with the main machinery for safe and proper transmission of electrical energy.". This is a finding of fact about the purpose for which conduit pipe is used by the petitioners and the same has not been challenged by any party. This finding of fact has been adopted by the Tribunal in the case of Ijaz Oil and Conduit Pipe Mills.

8. As the proceedings arose under the Sales Tax Act the learned members of the Bench of both the High Courts were exercising jurisdiction under section 17 of the said Act which has its own limitations and is completely different from appeal. The Court has to answer the question, which has been referred to it. Furthermore unless the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal is specifically challenged in reference it has to be accepted by the High Court. The question referred by the Tribunal does not challenge the finding of fact. The question has been framed in a manner which accepts the finding of fact as determined by the Tribunal and excludes any challenge to such finding. The appellants seek the interpretation of the Notification on the basis of facts and circumstances as found by the Tribunal. It is well settled that where any question opens with the words. "whether on the facts and circumstances of the case" or similar phraseology the findings of the Tribunal are accepted and on the basis of these findings the question has to be answered.

9. The High Courts while considering the question referred by the Tribunal seem to have ignored this aspect of the case and entered into the correctness of the finding of the Tribunal by observing that it is based on mere conjecture and without any evidence to support it. Such a conclusion could not have been drawn by the High Courts as no such question was referred to them. Therefore, the material mistake which has occurred in approaching the question is that first the High Courts set aside the finding then came to their own conclusion in the light of the findings arrived by them. Such procedure was not warranted and is not permissible in cases where reference has been made under section 17 of the Sales Tax Act. Therefore, the question should have been considered on the basis of the finding of the Tribunal which had not been challenged and has been reproduced above.

10. The High Court after discarding the finding of the Tribunal considered the meaning of the words `control gear' and `transmission gear' and also the word `gear' as given in Webster's New International Dictionary, Shorter Oxford Dictionary, The New Universal Encyclopaedia, page 3001, Glossary of Terms used in Electrical Engineering and also keeping in view the principles of interpretation as laid down in M/s. Usman Glass Sheet Factory Limited v. Sales Tax Officer, PLD 1971 SC 205 and Collector of Customs (Appraisement Karachi and others v. M/s. Abdul Majeed Khan and others 1977 SCMR 371 at page 387 answered the question in the negative.

11. Mr. A.A. Fazeel, the learned ASC for the appellant has referred to the meaning of ?gear? from various dictionaries as follows:---

Universal Dictionary of the English Language, edited by Henry Cecil Wyld

"EQUIPMENT, CLOTHES, ARMOUR, APPARATUS IMPLEMENTS, TACKLE OF WORDS, PIERCE OF MACHANISM OF MACHINE CONSISTED OF A SYSTEM OF TOOTHED WHEELS WHICH COMMUNICATE MOTION TO OR RECEIVE IT FROM EACH OTHER; THE GEAR CONTROLS THE NUMBER AND SPEED OF THE REVOLUTIONS OF THE ULTIMATE MOVING PART (DRIVEN PART) OF THE MACHINERY RELATIVELY TO THOSE OF THE PARTS FROM WHICH THE MOTIVE POWER OF THE MACHINE IS PRIMARILY DERIVE."

2.Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language unabridged edited by Philip Babcock Gove.

EQUIPMENT, CLOTHING, AGREEMENT, PERSONAL BELONGINGS OR EQUIPMENTS."

According to Mr. Fazeel `gear' means equipment and apparatus. He then went on to state the meaning of apparatus and referred to Words and Phrases Legally Defined, 2nd Edition, Volume I, in which apparatus has been defined as follows: --

"Apparatus includes pipes, plant apparatus and fittings of whatever description (London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1949, S.4).

Apparatus includes any structure constructed for the lodging therein of apparatus (Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950, S.39)."

The learned counsel by referring these dictionary meanings has concluded that the word `gear' means apparatus and apparatus means pipe, therefore, conduit pipe should be treated either as gear as defined in item No.(v) or apparatus covered item (iii) of the Notification. In support of his contention that the Government department has also treated conduit pipe as gear, the learned counsel has referred to the Report of the Machinery Committee, 1922, which was assigned the task of redefining the word Machinery. After thorough probe in the matter and taking into account the technological advancement, the following was its conclusion:---

"Our final definition, therefore, is as follows: --

(i)...........................

(ii)...........................

(iii)?????? ....................

(iv) Control gear and transmission gear designed for use with any of the above including belting of all materials and driving chains, but not driving ropes bare hard drawn electrolytic copper wires and cables and other electrical wires and cables, insulated or not and poles, troughs, conduits and insulations designed as parts of a transmission system, with their fittings."

Reference has also been made to Pakistan Customs Tariff Guide published under the direction of the Central Board of Revenue updated up to 31-12-1949 in which under CBR Custom Ruling 7 of 1929 conduit specially designed for any electrical transmission system and fittings therefore was classified under item No.72(e) of the Import Tariff Classification. Under section XVI of its Schedule entitled Machinery and Apparatus: Electrical Material of the Pakistan Customs Tariff: item No.72(e) has been described as follows:

"(e) Bare hard drawn electrolytic copper wires and cables and other electrical wires and cables, insulated or not and poles through conduit and insulators designed as part of a transmission system, into the fittings thereof.

Note.--The term `industrial system' used in sub-item (c) means an installation designed to be employed directly in the performance of any process necessary for the manufacture, production or extraction of any commodity."

However, subsequently by Notification of 1954 conduit was deleted from item 72(e).

12. From these references it is sufficiently clear that the Central Board of Revenue for purposes of Customs Tariff had treated conduits and insulators designed as part of a transmission system and fittings as machinery and apparatus. In view of deletion in 1954 the past reference can be relevant to show treatment up to that date which has now been changed, therefore, item 72(e) may not be of much assistance to the appellant.

13. Mr. Fazeel also referred to definition of `electric supply line' as given by section 2(f) of Electricity Act, 1910, which includes pipes. From all these references, meanings and quotations, the learned counsel concluded that the conduit pipe is an apparatus arid a component part of the machinery for the purposes of transmitting power and, thus, falls within item (v) of the Notification or may be covered by item (vi) as well.

14. So far the meaning of apparatus reproduced above is concerned, the same has been given with reference to a particular statute. Therefore, unless the provisions of the said statutes are not examined it is not safe to rely upon it. In McGraw Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms `APPARATUS' has been defined as follows: ---

???????????????????? ?????????"A compound instrument designed to carry out spec function."

It has, therefore, to be considered whether conduit pipe fits in any of the definitions and articles mentioned in the Notification.

15. A close scrutiny of the Schedule to Notification No.14-C reproduced above will show that in column 2 description of articles- have been given. Item No. (i) specifies the kind of machinery not otherwise specified and inter alia used in any industrial process including the generation, transmission and distribution of power. Item No.(ii) covers component parts of machinery as defined in item (i) which have been designed in shape, size and quality for use in such machinery. Item No.(v) refers to mechanical and electrical control and transmission gear adapted for use in conjunction with machinery as defined in item No.(i). So, the mechanical and electrical control and transmission gear used in such Machinery will fall under item No.(v). However, its sphere has been extended even to cover belting of all types designed for use in such machinery, driving chains, switch boards, switches and fuses assembled in iron?clad cases, copper wires and cables insulated with impregnated paper, electrical earthenware and procelain, not otherwise specified. These items as classified are necessarily used in machinery for the purposes of generation, transmission and distribution of power or other purposes as specified in item No.(i). Presently as the exemption has been claimed in respect of conduit pipe particular reference will have to be made to transmission gear which is one of the articles mentioned in item No.(v). We may take into consideration the meaning of gear and transmission as reproduced in the impugned judgment from various dictionaries where it was held that a mechanical and electrical control and transmission gear is nothing but an accessory mechanism or machine for mechanical and electrical controlling and transmitting power adapted or suitable for use in conjunction with the main machinery as defined in the Schedule'. Thus, the accessory mechanism will include all such apparatus used in the machine for controlling and transmitting power. Item No.(v)'will show that besides such machinery it also includes other items specified above. Although they are not parts of machinery for setting it into motion which is the concept of the gear as held by the High Court, they are necessary items for the purposes of transmitting electric power and are used in machine. The finding of the Tribunal is that the conduit pipe is used as a protective cover to the wires and cables which transmits power. This finding could not have been disturbed by the High Court. The present advancement in electrical engineering and machinery has opened new dimensions with greater risk and hazards. There is insistence on safety measures to protect the equipment and workers from the hazards of such machineries and make transmission of electric power safe and effective. The Machinery Committee which, was constituted as far back as in 1922 had included conduit pipe as a necessary ingredient for the purposes of transmitting electric power. The same treatment is found in the Electricity Act and also in Customs Tariff up to 1953. Therefore, in practice as found by the Tribunal the use of conduit pipe in conjunction with machinery is necessary for safe, secure and proper transmission of power.

16. Mr. Fazeel, the learned ASC, has contended that in interpreting the technical words the technical meaning as used in that particular field and also the interpretation and treatment given by the Government departments should also be taken into consideration. The learned counsel has referred to Nazir Ahmed v. Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 453, in which the importance of departmental interpretation or practice has been highlighted. It was a case relating to service matter. However, it cannot be denied that subject to the wording of the Notification describing a particular item of article, the treatment as given by the department can be taken into consideration but it cannot be treated as final.

17. In the impugned judgment reference has been made to various dictionaries to ascertain the meaning of `transmission line', `gear' and `mechanical' and `electrical control'. According to Glossary of Terms Used in Electrical Engineering (section 5) the term transmission and distribution under B.S. No.5204 been defined as "an electric line intended solely for the transmission of electrical energy from a generating station or a sub-station to other stations or sub-stations". In Me Graw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, Second Edition `Transmission' has been defined as follows:---

"in Electrical Equipment. The process of transferring a signal message, picture or other form of intelligence from one location to another location by means of wirelines. radio, lightbeams;

In mechanical engineering: The gearing system by which power is transmitted from the engine to the line axile in an automobile."

In Dictionary of Electrical Engineering by K.G. Jackson Second Edition published by Butterworths meaning of the term `Control Gear' is as follows:---

"Control Gear: Usually in heavy-current installation, the combination of switching devices with their associated equipments for control, measurement, protection and regulation."

The Lahore High Court held that conduit pipe cannot qualify for exemption if meant for general use and not restricted to the purpose of item (v). It, therefore, implies that conduit pipe will be exempted if it is used for purpose enumerated in item (v) of the Notification.

18. In this background if we consider the aforestated meanings it is evident that in the field of electrical engineering the transfer of power or energy or current is made through wire. To control it, combination of switching devices with their associated equipments, apparatus and appliances are used. In such combination of devices conduit pipe is used for the protection, safety and smooth operation of transmission line in conjunction with machinery as defined in item (i) of the Notification. The use of conduit pipe is so necessary for the safe and smooth transmission of power that as held by the Tribunal it has become a necessary ingredient of the process. We are, therefore, of the view that item (v) of the Notification will cover all such conduit pipes which are used for transmission of power in conjunction with the machinery defined in item (i). The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.

M.BA./P-197/S???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals allowed.