JUDGMENT K. A. NAYAR, J. - These tax revision cases are filed against the common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palghat, in T.A. Nos. 85/87 and 220 to 223/87 for the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. In all these years the petitioner was denied the concessional rate of tax at 1 per cent on the sales turnover of super enamelled copper wires. 2. The assessee obtained form No. 18 declarations from the purchasers. It was the contention of the assessee before the assessing authority that super enamelled copper wires are component parts that goes into the production of many electrical goods. The assessing officer found that under item 130 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act the words "accessories and component parts" are used in a different sense. Under section 5(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, the tax payable by a dealer in respect of any sale of the goods mentioned in the First Schedule by such dealer to another for use by the latter as component part of any other goods mentioned in the said Schedule, which he intends to manufacture inside the State for sale, shall be at the rate of only one per cent on the taxable turnover relating to such sale. Entry 130 of the First Schedule mentioned "all electrical goods and other accessories". The contention was that super enamelled copper wire comes under the entry as accessories and the purchaser uses the same in the manufacture of electrical goods coming under entry 130. But the assessing officer held that super enamelled copper wire is not a component part of electrical transformers as in the case of fanblade to fans and steering wheel to motor vehicles. In that view of the matter he held that the super enamelled copper wire is only an accessory to electrical goods and not a component part to claim benefit of the section. 3. In that view of the matter he held that the super enamelled copper wire is only an accessory to electrical goods and not a component part to claim benefit of the section. 3. Appeals against the orders were dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner holding that what is sold by the assessee is super enamelled copper wire, and the case of the assessee that the super enamelled copper wire is a component of electrical goods cannot be accepted in the light of the decision in Paul Lazar v. State of Kerala [1977] 40 STC 437 (Ker) holding that an article can be regarded as a component part of the principal object only if the latter is incomplete without the former, and the former is capable of identification either visually or through chemical or other tests as a distinguishable part of the finished product. The Deputy Commissioner also held that the super enamelled copper wire was not a component part of the electrical goods. In that view of the matter all the appeals were dismissed and it was held that the assessee cannot be allowed the concessional rate of 1 per cent, even though the sales of super enamelled copper wires are covered by declaration in form No. 18. In further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal the same contention was repeated and following the decision in Paul Lazar v. State of Kerala [1977] 40 STC 437 (Ker), the Appellate Tribunal also dismissed the appeals by a common order. The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a dealer in copper wire and sold copper wire to Indian Transformers Ltd., Alwaye, and produced necessary declarations in form No. 18 to claim the concessional rate provided under the Act and as this Court held that the copper wire is not a component part of electrical goods, the Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee was not eligible to claim concessional rate of 1 per cent under the cover of form 18 declarations. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal also held that the assessing authority is perfectly justified in levying tax on the sales turnover of super enamelled copper wire at 10 per cent denying the concessional rate claimed by the assessees in all these cases. It is thereafter the petitioners filed the above tax revision cases raising the following questions of law. It is thereafter the petitioners filed the above tax revision cases raising the following questions of law. A. Was the Tribunal justified in law in ignoring and not adjudicating the plea raised by the assessee which is the crux of the issue, namely, that the assessee having complied with the proviso to section 5(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, can the Revenue ignore the declarations and penalise the assessee by charging the higher rate of tax applicable to the goods ? B. Is the Tribunal legally justified in holding that the concessional rate of tax of 1 per cent can be denied to the assessee even when there is strict compliance with the proviso to section 5(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and when there is no allegation that there was collusion between the assessee and the buyer ? C. When the Legislature has provided for imposition of penalty under section 45A(1)(f) and prosecution under section 46(2)(d) for incorrect issue of form 18 declarations by the buyer, was the Tribunal justified in upholding the denial of concessional rate of tax of 1 per cent to the seller-assessee ? D. Was the Tribunal justified in law in ignoring the ratio of the three decisions of this Honourable Court in [1974] 34 STC 370 (Radhakrishna Chetty & Bros. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax), [1978] 42 STC 225 (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bharat Refineries Limited) and [1981] 48 STC 37 (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company Limited) ? Do they not cover squarely the issue in dispute and is there any scope for deviating from the ratio of these decisions ? E. Has the decision in [1977] 40 STC 437 (Ker) (Paul Lazar v. State of Kerala) and 47 STC 77 (sic) any bearing or relevance in deciding the issue whether the denial of concessional rate of tax to the seller is justified in the circumstances of the case ? F. Can the assessee-petitioner be imputed with the knowledge of the decision in [1977] 40 STC 437 (Ker) (Paul Lazar. v. State of Kerala) and acted in conscious disregard of it ? F. Can the assessee-petitioner be imputed with the knowledge of the decision in [1977] 40 STC 437 (Ker) (Paul Lazar. v. State of Kerala) and acted in conscious disregard of it ? G. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the denial of the concessional rate of tax of 1 per cent provided in section 5(3) of the Act to the seller-assessee who has strictly complied with the provision ? 4. Counsel for the petitioner referred to section 5(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, which reads as follows : "5(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the tax payable by a dealer in respect of any sale of the goods mentioned in the First Schedule by such dealer to another for use by the latter as component part of any other goods mentioned in the said Schedule, which he intends to manufacture inside the State for sale, shall be at the rate of only one per cent on the taxable turnover relating to such sale : Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply to any sale unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes to the assessing authority in the prescribed manner a declaration duly filled in and signed by the dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form : Provided further that the goods sold are capable of being used as component part of any of the goods mentioned in the First Schedule. Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, 'component part' means an article which forms an identifiable constituent of any finished product, which along with others goes to make up the finished product and which is identifiable visually and is separable by a mechanical process and not by a chemical process, provided the identity of such article is not lost by separation." 5. On the basis of the above section it was contended that the assessee is a dealer in super enamelled copper wire and it was taxable under entry 130 of the First Schedule at 10 per cent at the point of first sale in the State. On the basis of the above section it was contended that the assessee is a dealer in super enamelled copper wire and it was taxable under entry 130 of the First Schedule at 10 per cent at the point of first sale in the State. The petitioner could have collected tax at that rate from the purchaser but section 5(3) says that the tax payable by a dealer in respect of any sale of the goods mentioned in the First Schedule by such dealer to another for use by the latter as component part of any other goods mentioned in the said Schedule which he intends to manufacture inside the State for sale, shall be at the rate of only one per cent. This is a concession given by the Legislature so that the purchaser need pay to the seller only tax at a concessional rate. The condition precedent for availing such concession, it is stated, is that the seller as well as the purchaser must be dealers of the goods sold by the seller. It is also stated that the proviso obliges the seller to furnish to the assessing authority in the prescribed manner a declaration duly filled in and signed by the dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form. Rule 28 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, makes the necessary prescription regarding the manner of furnishing the declaration and form of the declaration. The declaration shall he in form No. 18. Form No. 18 should be obtained by the purchasing dealer from the assessing authority on payment of fee and he should furnish the same to the selling dealer, duly filled up and signed by him. No selling dealer shall accept any declaration except in a form obtained by the purchasing dealer on application from the assessing authority. The purchasing dealer shall be responsible for the safe custody of the form, shall be personally responsible for the loss, destruction or theft of any such form or the loss or the loss of revenue to the Government, if any, resulting directly or indirectly from such theft, loss or destruction of the form. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner, being a selling dealer is entitled to be assessed at the concessional rate provided, he furnished form 18 declaration. Counsel referred to the decisions reported in Radhakrishna Chetty & Bros. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner, being a selling dealer is entitled to be assessed at the concessional rate provided, he furnished form 18 declaration. Counsel referred to the decisions reported in Radhakrishna Chetty & Bros. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax [1974] 34 STC 370 (Ker), State of Tamil Nadu v. Madras Refineries Limited [1978] 41 STC 306 (Mad.), Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bharat Refineries Limited [1978] 42 STC 225. (Ker), Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company Limited [1981] 48 STC 37 (Ker) and Chunni Lal Parshadi Lal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1986] 62 STC 112 (SC) and submitted that the assessee cannot be penalised and subjected to higher rate of tax in view of the aforesaid decisions. In the decision reported in Radhakrishna Chetty & Bros. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax [1974] 34 STC 370 (Ker) the question was whether a dealer in paper who sold paper to the purchasing dealer for the purpose of making paper products is entitled to the concessional rate of tax at 1 per cent when he furnished the form. It was held that sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, only requires the selling dealer to satisfy the assessing authority that the sale by him was of the goods mentioned in the First Schedule and was to a dealer for use by the latter as component part of any other goods mentioned in that Schedule. The proviso specifies how he should satisfy himself that it is for the use by the purchasing dealer as component part of any other goods mentioned in the First Schedule. When once he complies with the proviso his responsibility in the matter ceases. He cannot be held responsible if the goods purchased from him have not been actually used in the manufacture for sale of the goods specified in the First Schedule. He will not his liable on that account, to pay more tax than at the concessional rate. It is clearly mentioned in the said decision that the selling dealer should satisfy the assessing authority that the sale by him was of the goods in the First Schedule and was to a dealer for use by the latter as component part of any other goods mentioned in the said Schedule. It is clearly mentioned in the said decision that the selling dealer should satisfy the assessing authority that the sale by him was of the goods in the First Schedule and was to a dealer for use by the latter as component part of any other goods mentioned in the said Schedule. The proviso specifies how he should satisfy himself that it is for the use by the purchasing dealer as component part of any other goods mentioned in the First Schedule. He has to obtain a declaration form from the purchasing dealer and furnish it to the assessing authority. When once he complies with the proviso his responsibility in the matter must necessarily cease. The decision clearly lays down that the responsibility of the seller is to see that the proviso is complied with. The second proviso clearly states that the goods sold are capable of being used as component part of any of the goods mentioned in the First Schedule. So it was the duty of the selling dealer to satisfy that the super enamelled copper wire sold by the petitioner is capable of being used as component part of electrical goods. Therefore the said decision will not help the petitioner. Next case referred to is State of Tamil Nadu v. Madras Refineries Limited [1978] 41 STC 306, a decision of the Madras High Court. In that case the assessee importing crude oil and refining it at its refinery in Tamil Nadu sold lube base stocks to the Indian Oil Corporation who blended them to make lubricants which were sold to three oil companies. The lubricants were manufactured by the Indian Oil Corporation as per certain formulae. The assessee claimed under section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, concessional rate of tax on its sales of lube base stocks on the strength of declarations in form XVII made by the Indian Oil Corporation. The assessing authority and the appellate authority rejected the claim for the concessional rate of tax on the ground that the lube base stocks would not form component parts of the lubricants manufactured by the Indian Oil Corporation. On further appeal the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the concessional rate of tax and remanded the matter to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for verification of the declaration forms. On further appeal the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the concessional rate of tax and remanded the matter to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for verification of the declaration forms. On a revision to the High Court by the State it was held that the production of form XVII declarations would make the selling dealer eligible for the concessional rate of tax provided in section 3(3). In that case sub-section (3) of section 3 provided that the tax payable by a dealer in respect of any sale of goods mentioned in the First Schedule by such dealer to another for use by the latter as component part of any other goods mentioned in that Schedule, which he intends to manufacture inside the State for sale shall be at the rate of only three per cent. The proviso required the selling dealer to furnish to the assessing authority in the prescribed manner a declaration duly filled in and signed by the dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars. There was no further requirement as in the Kerala Act for satisfying that the goods sold are capable of being used as component parts of any of the goods mentioned in the First Schedule. Therefore that decision is also clearly distinguishable on facts. The third decision cited on behalf of the petitioner is Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bharat Refineries Limited [1978] 42 STC 225 (Ker). In that case the assessee, an oil company sold naphtha to a manufacturer of chemical fertilisers. At the time of sale, as required by the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 5, as it then stood, the manufacturer should furnish a declaration that the naptha was for use in the manufacture of goods covered by the First Schedule. It was subsequently found by the authorities that naphtha was used as fuel for producing hydrogen and that the hydrogen in turn was used for manufacture of chemical fertilisers. The question was whether the oil company could be denied the benefit of the concessional rate, in view of the fact that there could be no use of naphtha directly in the manufacture of chemical fertilisers. It was held that the oil company could not be denied the benefit of concessional rate. The question was whether the oil company could be denied the benefit of the concessional rate, in view of the fact that there could be no use of naphtha directly in the manufacture of chemical fertilisers. It was held that the oil company could not be denied the benefit of concessional rate. The form required only a declaration as "certified that the goods specified in the First Schedule and purchased from you as per bill/cash memo stated below supplied under your challan are for use by me as component part of other goods specified in that Schedule which I intend to manufacture inside the State for sale". The Division Bench of this Court observed that : "When once the declaration in form 18 is obtained by the selling dealer from the purchasing dealer and is furnished to the sales tax authorities, the selling dealer satisfies the requirements of the statute and he is entitled to claim the concessional rate of one per cent, irrespective of the correctness of the declaration or the manner in which the purchasing dealer subsequently acts. The purchasing dealer need not even specify in the declaration the goods he intends to manufacture or the nature of the use. The selling dealer is entitled to act on the meager particulars furnished, and there is no legislative intention to put him on an impossible enquiry as to the correctness of the declaration. The taxing event is the sale to the purchasing dealer. If the purchaser misrepresents, or subsequently misbehaves, the 'legislative wrath' falls upon him, as section 46(2)(d) of the Act provides for his imprisonment and for fine." This decision also will not help the petitioner as in that case also there was no requirement to satisfy that the goods are capable of being used as a component part. The next decision referred is Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company Limited [1981] 48 STC 37 (Ker). The assessee furnished open declarations from the purchasing dealers as required under section 5(3) of the Act read with rule 28 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, in respect of sales of naphtha. The next decision referred is Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company Limited [1981] 48 STC 37 (Ker). The assessee furnished open declarations from the purchasing dealers as required under section 5(3) of the Act read with rule 28 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, in respect of sales of naphtha. He could not be denied the benefit of the concessional rate of tax merely on the ground that the final product, viz., chemical fertilisers also a commodity specified in the First Schedule and manufactured by the purchaser, did not contain naphtha in any form. The said decision only followed the earlier decision reported in Bharat Refineries Ltd.'s case [1978] 42 STC 225 (Ker). The case referred is Chunni Lal Parshadi Lal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1986] 62 STC 112 (SC) wherein it was held that as there was no collusion between the selling dealer and the purchasing dealer in the latter issuing a certificate in form III-A that the goods purchased were for resale in the same condition or that the certificate was forged or fabricated, so far as the selling dealer is concerned the certificate in form III-A raised an irrebuttable presumption in favour of the selling dealer as contemplated by section 3-AA of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, and rule 12-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948, that the goods were purchased for resale in the same condition, and the tax cannot be realised from the selling dealer on the ground that the purchasing dealer has consumed the goods. The decision was cited as an authority for the proposition that the genuineness of certificate and declaration in form III-A may be examined by the taxing authorities but not the correctness or the truthfulness of the statements made therein. The taxing authorities may examine whether the certificate was issued in collusion or was forged or fabricated, but not enquire whether the purchasing dealer had subsequently sold the goods or consumed them. Furnishing of the certificate in form III-A raises a presumption that the goods are for resale. The taxing authorities may examine whether the certificate was issued in collusion or was forged or fabricated, but not enquire whether the purchasing dealer had subsequently sold the goods or consumed them. Furnishing of the certificate in form III-A raises a presumption that the goods are for resale. It was held in that case that when the registered dealer had been granted exemption in the original assessment in regard to sales to registered dealers who had furnished the requisite certificate in form III-A that the goods were intended for resale in the same condition, the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment on the basis that he had received information that the purchasing dealer had consumed the goods, especially as the appellate authority had held that there was no collusion on the part of the appellant, the selling dealer. 6. Even though the above cases are cited for the proposition that the responsibility of selling dealer is only to produce the declaration duly signed in the manner prescribed and on such production his liability ceases and therefore, he is liable to tax only at the concessional rate, that question was not raised or argued before the Tribunal or before the other authorities. The petitioner also pointed out that if the purchasing dealer has misused the form, the remedy is provided in section 45A(f) and section 46(1)(f) against the purchasing dealer. These arguments may have to be considered in detail in an appropriate case. But in these cares no such contentions have been raised before the Tribunal. Nevertheless we dealt with the above contentions shortly only because the same have been urged at the time of hearing. Under section 41, a revision lies to the High Court only on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal either decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of law. The questions of law raised in the revision petition have been set out in paragraph 3 of the judgment. None of the questions have been raised before the Tribunal. The questions raised and argued before the Tribunal as will be seen from the order is whether super enamelled copper wire is a component part in the manufacture of electrical goods. The questions of law raised in the revision petition have been set out in paragraph 3 of the judgment. None of the questions have been raised before the Tribunal. The questions raised and argued before the Tribunal as will be seen from the order is whether super enamelled copper wire is a component part in the manufacture of electrical goods. In view of the decision in Paul Lazar v. Stage of Kerala [1977] 40 STC 437 (Ker), the Tribunal held that the goods in question, super enamelled copper wire, is not capable of being used as component part of electrical goods and therefore sub-section (3) will not apply to the assessee and he is not liable to be assessed at the rate of 1 per cent. In view of these, we find no substance in the revision petitions. The Tribunal has not decided the question of law erroneously or failed to decide any question of law now raised before it. The questions of law now raised and argued do not arise out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The tax revision cases are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.