Satish Chandra, J.
1. The Revising Authority, Meerut, has submitted the statement of the case for the opinion of this court on the following question of law :
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, water-meters which the assessee manufactures and their parts are machinery and, as such, taxable under Notification No. ST-1367/X-1045(19)-1960 dated 5th April, 1961 ?
2. The question relates to the assessment year 1963-64. For the assessment year in question the account books of the assessee were accepted, with the result that the turnover of the sale of water-meters manufactured by the assessee as shown in the account books was also accepted.
3. The assessee pleaded that the water-meters manufactured by it were not machinery, and that, similarly, parts of water-meter manufactured by it could not be taxed as parts of machinery. According to the assessee, the turnover of sale of water-meters was taxable as sale of unclassified item at 2 per cent. The Sales Tax Officer repelled this plea. He held that water-meters were machinery and their parts were parts of machinery taxable at 3 per cent. The rate of tax on machinery and machinery parts was increased to 6 per cent with effect from 1st October, 1965. So the turnover of the period subsequent to this date was taxed at 6 per cent. This view was affirmed in appeal as well as by the revising authority.
4. The revising authority found that the water-meter manufactured by the assessee is an instrument, and that when water passes through it the parts of the instrument move, which movement effects movement of the various indicators made in the meter to indicate the quantity of water passing through the instrument. It is thus clear that the movement of water through the meter in question by itself effects transfer of energy to certain parts of the meter, as a result of the application of force imparted by the movement of water.
5. In Engineering Traders v. State of U.P. 1973 U.P.T.C. 91 a Full Bench of this Court held that machinery in generic sense would include all appliances and instruments whereby energy or force is transmitted and transformed from one point to another. This Full Bench decision was followed by a Division Bench in Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Chandok Traders 1973 U.P.T.C. 484, in which the question was whether hair clippers were machinery. It was held that since hair clippers are instruments which transmit force from one point to another they were machinery within the meaning of the relevant notification. In the light of these decisions, the water-meters manufactured by the assessee cannot but be held to be machinery because they too work on account of the transmission of energy caused by the movement of water in them. The transmission of energy makes some parts of the meter work. In our opinion, the revising authority was justified in holding that the water-meters in question were taxable as machinery and their parts as parts of machinery.
6. The question referred to us is answered in the affirmative in favour of the department and against the assessee. The Commissioner will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 100.