' MAMOON KAZI, J.---Telephone poles manufactured by the petitioner which were meant to be delivered to the Incharge Telegraph Stores Depot, Kotri have been seized by respondent No,2 for non-payment of sales tax. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the said goods have been exempted from payment of such tax by virtue of S.R.Os. No,600(1)/90 and 601(1)/90 both, dated 7-6-1990 and hence the action taken by respondent No,2 is without lawful authority. The petition has been resisted by the respondents who have also filed parawise comments through the respondent No,2. The main contention of the respondents is that the petitioner's goods are not covered by either of the two notifications as neither the goods in question are integral part of the machinery purportedly exempted from payment of sales tax under the said notifications nor goods in question are meant for exclusive use of the Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone Department.
2. Mr. Khalid Ishaque has firstly argued that the goods manufactured by the petitioner are covered by headings 73.06 and 73.08. The said headings refer to articles of iron and steel. Articles covered under Heading 73.06 are "Other tubes, pipes and hollow profiles (for example, open seam or welded, riveted or similarly closed), of iron or steel". Similarly, Heading 73.08 refers to "Structures (excluding prefabricated buildings of Heading No,94.06) and parts of structures (for example, bridges and bridge sections, lock-gates, towers, lattice masts, roofs, roofing, frameworks, doors and windows and their frames and thresholds for doors, shutters, balustrades, pillars and columns), of iron or steel; plates, rods, angles, shapes, sections tubes and the like, prepared for use in structure, of iron or steel". Reliance has also been placed by Mr. Khalid Ishaque upon S.R.O. 601(1)/90 and according to the learned counsel, the goods of the petitioner fall within the purview of Heading 85.17 referred to in the said notification. The goods specified under the said Heading are "Electric apparatus for line telephony or line telegraphy, including such apparatus for carrier current line systems".
3. It is pertinent to point out that what has been exempted from payment of sales tax under S.R.O.
600(1)/90 is machinery or its component parts. The said notification itself defines machinery as follows:--- "Definition of machinery.--
(i) Machinery operated by power of any description 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 privileges structures and the manufacture of goods;
(ii) Apparatus and appliances, including metering and testing apparatus and appliances specifically adapted for use in conjunction with machinery, specified in item (i) above;
(iii) Mechanical and electrical control and transmission gear adapted for use in conjunction with machinery specified in item (i) above; and
(iv) Component parts of machinery, as specified in items (i), (ii) and (iii) above, identifiable as for use in or with such machinery."
' Although Mr. Khalid Ishaque has very strongly contended that the poles manufactured by the petitioners are also classifiable as 'tubes' and the same are covered by the said notification but notwithstanding the fact that apparatus and appliances etc. Which can be used in conjunction with or as component part of machinery has also been defined as "machinery" in the said notification but the poles manufactured by the petitioner by no stretch of imagination can be regarded either as machinery or component parts thereof or apparatus or appliances which may be used in conjunction with such machinery. Mr. Khalid Ishaque then referring to Heading 73.08 argued that it also refers to pillars and columns of iron and steel, the poles, therefore, can fall under such Heading. However, this argument also carries little force because Heading 73.08 refers to structures and parts of structures, etc., therefore, it is hard to classify poles as columns connected with structures and buildings. Similarly reforting to S.R.O. No,601(1)/90, which is the other notification relied upon by Mr. Khalid Ishaque, Heading 85.17 invoked by the learned counsel refers to electric apparatus as shown above including apparatus for line telephony, line telegraphy or for current line system. It is, however, hard to comprehend that poles manufactured by the petitioner can fall within the ambit of the said heading as apparatus referred to therein.
4. Furthermore, the Notification, S.R.O. No,601(1)/90 further indicates that the articles which are exempted under the said notification are such which are meant for exclusive use of the Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone Department. Admittedly, the goods of the petitioner are not meant for exclusive use by the said department. Although Mr. Khalid Ishaque has placed reliance upon an unreported case, Writ Petition No, 833/1965 (Sultan Ahmad Barry v. Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, Karachi (1983 CLC 1538) wherein it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that essences any synthetic essential oils. Although, are not primarily understood as perfumes but the contention that such products are capable of being used as purfumes or utilized as perfumes cannot make them perfumery as such. In another unreported case, C.P. No,D-825/87 (International Industries Ltd. v. Collectors of Customs (Appraisement) (1991 M LD 1447), it was held that bicycles steel tubes produced by the petitioner could fall within the purview of the Notification, dated 14-6- 1984 granting exemption to manufacturers of cycle tubes notwithstanding the fact that such tubes could be used for other purposes as well. However, in our opinion, both the cases can be distinguished because as pointed out earlier, a manufacturer couki claim benefit under Notification S.R.O. No,601(1)/90 only in case the goods manufactured were meant for exclusive use of the Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone Department. The use of the word "exclusive" would exclude their use for other purpose. Admittedly no such condition was attached to the goods in the cases referred to by Mr. Khalid Ishaque. We are consequently of the view that the goods manufactured by the petitioner do not fall within the ambit of either of the said notifications and, therefore, they arc not exempted from payment of sales tax under the said notifications.
5. For the above-said reasons, this petition is dismissed in limine and so is C.MA. No,4590/93.