JUDGMENT Kamleshwar Nath, J. 1. RESPONDENT Jaswant Singh imported 103 quintals of iron pipe into the Mahapalika of Hardoi on 18-12-1979 and. did not pay octroi thereon on the basis that it was meant for agricultural purposes. If octroi was payable the amount would have been Rs. 618/-. On 15-1-80 the Municipal Board of Hardoi lodged a complaint under Section 154/155 of the U. P. Municipalities Act for the prosecution of respondent Jaswant Singh on the ground that he had made an evasion of the due octroi. The defence was that the pipe in question was used for tube wells. 2. THE trial court held that the pipe in question was used for agricultural purposes and, therefore, was exempt from octroi under Exemption Item no. 5 which otherwise would have been liable to octroi under Item no. 110 of the relevant Schedule. He, therefore, acquitted the respondent. This appeal, against acquittal, las been filed on the ground that the iron pipes in question could not be considered to be part of agri- cultural machines and, therefore, the exemption in question did not apply to it. 3. THE relevant portion of Item No. 110 of the Schedule, under which iron pipes are liable for octroi, is as follows "Lohe ka kul saman pipe fitting ka saman." Exemption Item no. 5 runs as follows :- "Krishi sambandi machine mai tractor wa unka saman." THE finding of fact, recorded by the trial court, is that the pipe in question was used for drawing water by being fitted to tube wells. PW 1 Ram Bhajan stated that he did not know whether the pipe in question was or was not used in tube wells. He, however, admitted that he had seen borings for tube well and that pipes of the kind in question were used in boring for drawing water. THE defence evidence was. that the pipe in question was used in tube wells for drawing water. THEre can be no doubt, therefore, that on being fitted to tube wells, or for the matter of that in machines meant for drawing water, the pipe in question would have been used for agricultural purposes. 4. LEARNED counsel for the appellant says that the statement of use for tube well is not necessarily a statement of use for agricultural purposes. There is no substance in this contention. 4. LEARNED counsel for the appellant says that the statement of use for tube well is not necessarily a statement of use for agricultural purposes. There is no substance in this contention. In the first place, none of the parties proceeded on that basis in the trial court. In the second place, the common use of tube well is irrigation. The main point urged is that iron pipe in question is neither machinery nor part of machinery and, therefore, does not fall within Exemption Item no. 5. The contention does not seem to be correct. Both the Taxing Item no. 110 and the Exemption Item no. 5 use the word 'Saman'. Expression 'Saman' cannot be confined to parts or spajre parts, it is much wider and must mean, goods. It will be seen that in Taxing Item no. 110 the expression "Lohe ka kul saman" cannot mean all the spare parts of iron, it can only mean all the goods of iron. Similarly, in Exemption Item no. 5 the expression 'Saman' must mean goods concerning agricultural machines including tractors, it cannot be confined to spare parts of agricultural machines or tractor. This seems to be the basic error in the point of view of the Municipal Board, Hardoi. Indeed, in ground no. 2 of the Memorandum of Appeal, it has been stated that the relevant rules of the Municipal Board Hardoi offer exemption to "spare parts." 5. LEARNED counsel for the appellant is not wrong in his contention that iron pipe is neither machinery nor part of the machinery. It is an essential component of the machinery which is used for the purposes of drawing water. It is clear enough that no pumping set or tube well machine can draw water unless iron pipe is fixed into the earth for that purpose. It is clear therefore, that while an iron pipe, used for the purposes of drawing water by fixing it to water pump or a tube well, is essential for achieving the object of drawing water, it is not a spare part or parts of the water pump or the tube well itself. Even so, as indicated above, the octroi levy or exemption is not confined to spare parts, they extend to all the goods which are concerned with agricultural machines. 6. Even so, as indicated above, the octroi levy or exemption is not confined to spare parts, they extend to all the goods which are concerned with agricultural machines. 6. IN this connection learned counsel fir the respondent has referred to the decision in the case of M/s. A-One Engineers and Builders v. Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur, 1975 UPTC 338 where: it has been held that Diesel engines, which are commonly used for operating water pumps, are agricultural implements although they themselves do not draw water from the sub-soil. The analogy of this decision can usefully be taken aid of in the present case. Even as a Diesel engine, which by itself will not draw water from the sub-soil, has to be treated as an agricultural implement because it is used commonly for operating water pumps, so also iron pipes fixed in the soil and used for drawing sub-soil water, would be undoubtedly goods concerning agricultural machines as are employed for drawing water, for example, water pumps or tube wells. It is worth mentioning that the question whether a particular iron pipe constitutes goods for use of agricultural machines is a question of fact for determination in each case. In a case where such pipe is not proved to be used for agricultural purposes there is; no exemption from octroi duty, but where it is proved, as in this case, that it is used for drawing sub-soil water for the purposes of irrigation by agricultural machines, it is certainly exempt from octroi duty. The appeal is dismissed.