Pump house lighting qualifies as agricultural electricity use, defeating the differential duty demand.

Electricity used for lighting the pump house was treated as electricity consumed for agricultural purposes, so the corresponding demand for differential duty was not sustainable. The analysis relied on an earlier Tribunal ruling that pump house lighting was integral to agricultural use, rejecting the premise that such consumption was non-essential. On that basis, the demand on this count was set aside and consequential relief followed for the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether electricity consumed for lighting the pump house formed part of electricity consumed for agricultural purposes, so as to exclude the corresponding demand of differential duty.

Analysis: The demand was founded on disallowance of electricity consumption for two lamps per tube well on the premise that lighting of the pump house was not essential. A prior Tribunal decision had already held that electricity consumed for lighting the pump house was also electricity consumed for agricultural purposes.

Conclusion: The demand raised on this account was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the assessee.

---