Judgment :- VENKATASWAMI, J. This tax case revision is directed against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, in T.A. No. 397 of 1979 dated March 5, 1980. 2. The only question that arises for consideration in this case is, whether a turnover of Rs. 5, 31, 963 represents inter-State sales exigible to tax in the State from which the goods moved or intra-State sales exigible to tax in the State of Tamil Nadu. 3. Relevant facts leading to the filing of this tax case by the Revenue are as under : The respondent is a dealer in electrical goods and also a selling agent of M/s. Cutler and Hammer (India) Ltd., and Advani Oerlikon (India) Ltd., Bombay. For the requirements of M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Trichy, M/s. Kaveri Engineering Industries Limited, Trichy and M/s. R. M. H. Corporation, Trichy (hereinafter called "the buyers"), the respondent/assessee booked orders on its principals subject to the terms and conditions mutually agreed upon. It is not in dispute that the goods were manufactured by the sellers at Bombay (principals of the respondent-assessee) in pursuance of specific orders received from the respondent-assessee who is doing business at Trichy. The buyers placed orders with the respondent for supply of machinery required by them. The prices agreed between the parties are not f.o.r. Trichy. In accordance with the purchase orders, the respondent informed the principals and on receipt of such orders, the principals manufactured the goods to the specifications/requirements of the buyers and despatched them to Trichy. The suppliers (principals) are named as consignees booked "to self" through lorry transport organisation. While despatching the goods, the suppliers endorsed the way-bills authorising their agent, the respondent herein, to take delivery of the goods at Trichy. The assessee, in turn, while the goods were in transit, endorsed the way-bills authorising the buyers to take delivery of the goods. Since one of the terms of the contract of sale was "f.o.r. Trichy", the assessee, after forwarding the way-bills to the buyers, after endorsement authorising them to take delivery of the goods, paid the lorry freight to the transport corporation. Since one of the terms of the contract of sale was "f.o.r. Trichy", the assessee, after forwarding the way-bills to the buyers, after endorsement authorising them to take delivery of the goods, paid the lorry freight to the transport corporation. The Revenue clutching the fact of payment of lorry freight by the respondent-assessee, to the Transport Corporation, treated the respondent-assessee as the person who had taken delivery of the goods at Trichy and effected further intra-State sale to the buyers notwithstanding the admitted fact that when the goods were in transit, the way-bills had already been endorsed in favour of the buyers, enabling them to take delivery of the goods from the lorry sheds. By so treating the respondent-assessee as the person who had taken delivery of the goods at Trichy and had effected further local sales, the assessing authority and also the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, justified the levy of local sales tax on the disputed turnover. Except this fact, no other material is available to treat the sales admittedly commenced as inter-State sales, as one amounting to local sales exigible to local sales tax. The Tribunal, in its elaborate order, has found as a fact, "the way-bills produced by the appellants at the time of hearing bear testimony that the sales were in transit while the goods were in movement and the way-bills have been endorsed authorising the ultimate buyers to take delivery of the goods. There is thus clear evidence and proof that there was no termination of movement at Trichy by taking delivery of the goods by the appellants and then effecting intra-State sale attracting liability to tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Similarly, the Prakash Road Lines (P) Ltd., have also affirmed in their letter dated February 23, 1977, that in respect of 22 consignments despatched by M/s. Advani Oerlikon (India) Ltd., the goods covered by the way-bills were delivered by us to the parties mentioned in the last column of the statement against the way-bills endorsed by you in their favour." * After appreciating the way-bills and the endorsements thereon, the Tribunal further held, "from these above facts we find and are also of the view and opinion that there was no termination of movement of goods at Trichy in the hands of the appellants constituting intra-State sale liable to tax in the hands of the appellants. On the contrary, all the way-bills have been endorsed in favour of the ultimate buyers and this has also been affirmed and certified both by the buyers and by the transport organisations that the goods have been delivered to them at their destination by endorsing the way-bills constituting second inter-State sale under section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. We also find that all the sales are covered by proper and valid C declaration forms issued by the buyers and EI certificates issued by the sellers in outside the State and thereby falling under section 6(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, enabling the appellants for total exemption under the Central Sales Tax Act", and consequently allowed the appeal. 4. As against the above clear finding of the Tribunal supported by materials, nothing contrary has been produced before us by the learned Government Advocate to persuade us to take a different view. On the facts, as found by the Tribunal, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is unexceptionable. In the circumstances, the tax case fails and the same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.