ORDER DR. A. S. ANAND, C.J. - Disallowance of exemption on a turnover of Rs. 1,97,125 towards El sales falling under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, was the only grievance projected by the respondent - assessee before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Main Bench, Madras. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that transaction handled by the assessee was one falling under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act eligible for exemption but restricted and confined the exemption to the extent of El form sales for Rs. 1,71,475 only. Disallowance of exemption was confirmed in respect the balance turnover of Rs. 25,650. The Revenue is in revision against the order of the Tribunal allowing the exemption on the turnover of Rs. 1,71,475. The assessing authority disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act by the following observations : "The appellants have claimed exemption on a turnover under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. It is admitted that the goods were received from dealers outside the State and such goods were taken delivery at Madras. The goods were again been sent to Pudukottai incurring freight charges by the appellants. As such it is proved beyond doubt that it is not a sale by transfer of document falling under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessing officer is therefore justified in disallowing exemption on the turnover under dispute and levying tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959." The Tribunal, however, did not agree with the view of the assessing authority. The Tribunal found on the basis of the material placed before the authorities that the assessee had produced El forms and that the contract entered into by the assessee with the Director of Agriculture was for supply of goods at Madras and that the Director of Agriculture, Pudukottai had paid the freight charges between Madras and Pudukottai, which went on to show that the exemption claimed was justified. Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act provides that where a sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce of goods of the description referred to in section 8(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act which has occasioned the movement of goods from one State to another or has been effected by a transfer of documents of title to such goods during their movement from one State to another, any subsequent sale during such movement effected by a transfer of documents of title to such goods to the Government or to a registered dealer shall not be subject to tax under the Act. A dealer claiming exemption for subsequent sale during the movement of the goods from one State to another is required to furnish to the prescribed authority El certificates. The assessee in this case admittedly produced El certificates to the extent of Rs. 1,71,475. The Tribunal, on the basis of the material on record found that the assessee had not taken delivery of the goods at all and that the goods were sent by the outside State sellers to the Director of Agriculture, Pudukottai and the department had led no evidence to show that the goods were either received by the assessee or even handled by it. On the contrary, it was found that the freight charges had been paid by the purchaser department between Madras and Pudukottai. On the basis of the material on record the Tribunal found that the assessee had entered into an agreement for a consolidated price and that the freight charge was separate. In the face of this material, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the assessee was entitled to exemption on the turnover of Rs. 1,71,475 which was covered by El certificates on the ground that it was exempted under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act is perfectly sound and valid. The assessing authority, without reference to any material or evidence, returned a finding against the assessee on mere surmises and conjectures, and we find it difficult to accept the finding of the assessing authority in preference to the finding recorded by the Tribunal after proper and correct appreciation of the evidence and the material on record. Consequently we find that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and calls for no interference in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction. Consequently we find that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and calls for no interference in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction. The tax revision case consequently fails and is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.