ORDER R.S. Shukla, Member This is an appeal against the order of the Sales Tax Commissioner dated 15th June 1959, setting aside the order of the Sales Tax Officer and remanding the appellant's assessment case with the direction that the deduction of railway freight said to have been charged separately by the appellant, shall not be allowed and fresh assessment shall be made in accordance with the observations made in his order. The facts relevant to the issue raised in the appeal are, briefly, as follows:- The appellant-assessee manufactures and sells Malti Brand Hydrogenated oil in tins. The goods are sent by rail or road and the freight is to be paid by the customers at destination and deduction of railway freight is made in the final bill. The form in which the contract of sale is entered into, is on record and shows that the rates of various sizes of tins are quoted "F.O.R. Indore less railway freight or lorry hire, whichever is lower, up to...............and exclusive of sales tax and other local taxes." Copy of certain bills, drawn by the assessee on his customers, are also on record. As an instance, I may refer to Invoice No. H/1601/57 dated 28th October 1957, under which the goods were despatched to Fatehnagar under R/R. No. A/57/52312 showing 'Freight to pay' as Rs. 214-50. This R/R was sent through the Central Bank of India Ltd., Indore. In the body of the invoice, after showing the price of the goods as Rs. 11,540-50, railway freight of Rs. 214-50 has been deducted. The Sales Tax Commissioner, relying on the case of Sales Tax Commissioner v. M/s Anwar Khan Mehboob and Co. AIR 1956 Nag. 16 : 1956 S.T.C. 197 held that the railway freight, in the instant case, cannot be excluded from the sale price of the goods because the transaction, in effect, amounted to a sale 'F.O.R. Destination' instead of 'F.O.R. Indore', as sought to be made out by the appellant. The reason given by the learned Sales Tax Commissioner, need not be repeated here. The reason given by the learned Sales Tax Commissioner, need not be repeated here. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Sales Tax Commissioner misread the decision of the Nagpur High Court, cited above and relied only on the contents of the Bills; he should, instead, have relied upon the terms of the contract which, according to the learned counsel, clearly showed that the goods were actually sold as 'F.O.R. Indore'. He particularly drew my attention to the following observations occurring in the above quoted Nagpur case:- "In other words, the determining factor is not the terms in which the bill is made, but the terms of actual contract between the parties and if the contract was, as stated, F.O.R. Destination, it must mean that the price was intended between the parties to be exclusive of the railway freight." It was urged on behalf of the appellant that the object of deducting railway freight from the 'F.O.R. Indore' price was to encourage the sale of appellant's goods throughout the country. The appellant had a fixed and uniform price for "F.O.R. Indore" and reduced this price for each customer by an amount equivalent to the cost of railway freight that had to be borne by each customer. Thus by deducting the railway freight the customers, coming both from far and near, have the advantage of securing the goods at destination at the same price. It was, therefore, only a device to facilitate the expansion of appellant's trade though, in fact, the railway freight had to be paid by the customer and had, therefore, to be treated as separately charged within the definition of sale price under section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. After carefully perusing the terms of the contract, as also the bills drawn by the appellant, there can be no doubt that the learned Sales Tax Commissioner took the correct view in the matter. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his contention, may look plausible at first sight, but are completely belied by the admitted facts and the documents on record. It is clear from the Bill, referred to above as an instance, that the goods were sent 'Freight To Pay' and that this 'freight' was subsequently deducted from the sale price. It is clear from the Bill, referred to above as an instance, that the goods were sent 'Freight To Pay' and that this 'freight' was subsequently deducted from the sale price. This unmistakably shows that the payment by the purchaser of the railway freight was in the nature of an advance price to be given credit for at the time of final settlement. As the learned Sales Tax Commissioner has pointed out, the transaction amounts to a sale 'F.O.R. Destination' for the railway freight is included in the sale price. The purchaser has to pay the railway freight before taking delivery because the goods are despatched 'Freight to Pay.' As the sale price includes the railway freight, the purchaser is entitled to claim deduction equal to the railway freight and that is why the railway freight is deducted in the final accounting. Thus the terms of the contract as also the actual bill, made in accordance with the contract, clearly disclose that the 'F.O.R. Indore' price is a misnomer and that the price so quoted is inclusive of the railway freight. Under the circumstances it would be absurd to say that the railway freight is separately charged so as to need exclusion for the purpose of sales tax. The view taken by the Sales Tax Commissioner is, therefore, perfectly sound and no interference in appeal is called for. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed