Agricultural implement exemption turns on common and direct farm use, not exclusive agricultural use.

Hand tools such as pick axes, beaters, powrah/hoe/spade, shovels and crow-bars were treated as agricultural implements for exemption purposes because the controlling test was common and direct use in agricultural operations, not exclusive agricultural use. The fact that the goods were also capable of civil construction or other non-agricultural use did not defeat exemption where they were commonly used for agriculture and intimately connected with agricultural work. The exemption under Notification No. 55/75-C.E. therefore applied, subject only to the specific exclusions in the notification.

---

---

Issues: Whether hand tools such as pick axes, beaters, powrah/hoe/spade, shovels and crow-bars, though capable of use in non-agricultural work, were entitled to exemption as agricultural implements under Notification No. 55/75-C.E. dated 1-3-1975.

Analysis: The goods were classified under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and the exemption notification granted full relief to agricultural implements and parts thereof, subject only to the specific exclusions mentioned in the notification. The Revenue did not dispute that the goods were used for agricultural purposes and denied exemption only because they were also capable of use in civil construction and other activities. The controlling test applied was not exclusive agricultural use, but whether the goods are commonly used for agriculture and are intimately and directly connected with agricultural operations.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied merely because the goods were capable of other uses. The goods were held to be eligible for exemption, and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: For determining whether an implement is an agricultural implement, the decisive test is common and direct use in agricultural operations, not exclusive use for agriculture.

---