B.N. Sapru, J.
1. This is a revision by the assessee and pertains to the year 1970-71.
2. The assessee is a private limited company. It has a factory at Ghaziabad and head office at Delhi. The head office entered into a contract of sale for the supply of flowmore size 10 X 10' acquaseal, heavy duty, single stage, horizontal centrifugal pump specially designed for ash slurring pumping set having a rated capacity of 600 cubic metre per hour at a total dynamic head of 15 meters of water-head running at approximately 735 RPM speed complete with multi V-belt, variable sheave drive and suitable Siemens make 100 H.P., 960 RPM 415 volts, 3 ph. 5 cycles, A.C. motor having class 'E' insulation in TEFC enclosure. The contract provided that the motors should be provided with space heaters for 230 volts, single phase, 50 cycles, A.C. supply. It was laid down that the motors shall be suitable for operation at an ambient temperature of 50C. Only the pumps were manufactured at the factory at Ghaziabad. They were moved to Delhi and were to become part of the machinery supplied by the head office to M/s. Turner Hoare and Company Limited. The contract was entered into in Delhi and the pumps were made in Delhi.
3. The Tribunal has recorded the following finding :
From a perusal of the purchase order and the terms of the contract, it is evident that the appellants were required to supply pumping sets complete with motors, etc., to M/s. Turner Hoare and Co. Ltd. The pumps were fitted with Siemens 60 H.P., 960 RPM H. P. motors which were purchased from M/s. Siemens (India) Ltd., Bombay. Only the pumps and some of their spares were manufactured at the factory at Ghaziabad.
4. The assessee's case that the goods were appropriated in Delhi.has not been rejected by the Tribunal. The transport charges of the goods from the factory to Delhi have been found to have been paid by the assessee. No payment has been found to have been received by the assessee.
5. The Tribunal rejected the view of the sales tax authorities that the Central sales tax could be levied on the pumping sets because of the fact that the contract of sale was entered into between the head office and M/s. Turner Hoare and Company Limited.
6. The Tribunal has, however, remanded the matter to the sales tax authorities to re-examine the facts pertaining to the transaction amounting to Rs. 8,91,100 in respect of the pumping sets sold to M/s. Turner Hoare and Company Limited.
7. Once it is found that the pumping sets were part of the machinery to be supplied under the contract of sale, there could be no question of treating the movement of pumping sets from Ghaziabad to Delhi head office of the company as sale transactions subject to the Central sales tax. There was no sale of the goods by the assessee to the head office. Further there was no contract of sale for pumpsets and the pumpsets were a part of the goods sold. There is a further finding that the goods were assembled in Delhi and the title passed to the buyer in Delhi. In this view of the matter, the assessee is not liable to pay Central sales tax on the pumpsets, the sales of which has been assessed at Rs. 8,91,100.
8. As far as item No. 2 which relates to the sale of spare parts amounting to Rs. 31,395, there is no error in the judgment of the Tribunal.
9. In the result, the revision is partly allowed and it is held that the assessee is not liable to pay Central sales tax on the so-called sales of pumpsets amounting to Rs. 8,91,100 but the revision is dismissed in so far as the assessee questions the assessment of Central sales tax on the spare parts amounting to Rs. 31,395. The papers will go back to the Tribunal under Section 11(8) to make appropriate orders. The parties will bear their own costs.