Judgment :- KANAKARAJ, J. The petitioners are manufacturers and dealers in cement. For the assessment year 1978-79 the revision petitioners returned a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 12, 12, 85, 788.05 and Rs. 4, 21, 79, 060.20 respectively, under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called the "T.N.G.S.T. Act"). The assessing authority determined the total and taxable turnover as Rs. 5, 40, 71, 477.14 and Rs. 4, 72, 81, 254.72 respectively. In doing so the assessing authority disallowed exemption on a sum of Rs. 46, 92, 802 as freight charges and Rs. 4, 09, 392.52 as excise duty in his order dated December 31, 1979. The dispute in this revision relates only to the freight charges. 2. The assessing authority rendered a finding that the cost of transport from the place of manufacture to the place of destination had to be borne by the assessee and not by the buyers. He also held that the invoice cannot be determinative of the contract between the assessee and the buyers. The price payable on the basis of free on rail destination, as prescribed by the Cement Control Order, is binding on the parties. He also held that there was no question of the assessee collecting the freight charges on behalf of the Cement Controller. Accordingly, the claim for deduction under rule 6(c)(i) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules was denied. We will straightway refer to rule 6(c)(i) which runs as follows : "Rule 6 : The tax or taxes under sections 3, 3-A, 4 or 5 shall be levied on the taxable turnover of the dealer. In determining the taxable turnover the amounts specified in the following clauses shall, subject to the conditions specified therein, be deducted from the total turnover of a dealer - (a) and (b) ........(c) all amounts falling under the following three heads when specified and charged for by the dealer separately, without including them in the price of the goods sold - (a) freight;" * On the above provisions the verdict based on factual findings was inescapable, namely, to deny the benefit under rule 6(c)(i) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules. 3. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, relied on the judgment of the Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 3. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, relied on the judgment of the Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 1074, 1078 of 1977 and 512 of 1978 dated February 22, 1979 in the case of India Cements Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and rejected the appeal. On second appeal to the Tribunal in T.A. No. 1212 of 1980 the following findings were rendered : "All transactions of sale of cement were governed by the Cement Control Order. Accordingly the contract of sale entered into by the appellants with the purchaser was on f.o.r. destination. It must mean that the price of goods was intended to be inclusive of railway freight. They despatched the cement 'freight to pay' and while making out the bill, the railway freight paid by the purchaser was deducted. The payment made towards the railway freight by the purchaser must be regarded as advance payment towards the sale price of the goods, according to the contract with sale, f.o.r. destination." * Dealing with rule 6(c)(i) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, the Tribunal rightly pointed out that two conditions must be satisfied. Inasmuch as the freight charges formed part of the price of the goods, the benefit under the 6(c)(i) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules could not be claimed. The Tribunal also referred to Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan 1978 AIR(SC) 1496, 1978 (4) SCC 271 , 1979 (43) STC 13, 1979 (1) SCR 276 , 1978 UJ 624 , 1979 UPTC 37, 1978 TAXLR 2258, 1978 SCC(Tax) 225 (SC) to reject the appeal before them. 4. On the findings rendered by the authorities there is really nothing which could be urged in the revision. Mr. Inbarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, very resourcefully sought to make use of Ramco Cement Distribution Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1982 (51) STC 171 (Mad.). In that a Division Bench of this Court held that the "sale price", as per section2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, means the entire price inclusive of the freight, packing charges and excise duty because the bargain between the parties was the total consideration including the abovesaid items. The Division Bench however, found on the facts of the case that rule 6(c) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules became applicable. The distinguishing feature is brought out in the following words. The Division Bench however, found on the facts of the case that rule 6(c) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules became applicable. The distinguishing feature is brought out in the following words. "No contention has been taken by the department in these cases that the bargain between the parties was for payment of the price at a particular rate and that the sale price included the freight also notwithstanding rule 6(c)." * It would also be advantageous to refer to a recent judgment of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Bhaskaran Blue Metal Works 1991 (82) STC 116 . The following passages are apposite. "The test, therefore, as indicated in the judgment of the Supreme Court is, whether the freight has been made a part of the sale price or not. If there is anything to show that the freight has been made as part of the sale price, the Revenue may be justified in proceeding to take the freight also as part of the sale price and thus include it in the turnover on which tax can be imposed." " Thus, it is clear that freight cannot be included in the taxable turnover unless it is found that it was paid as a part of the stipulation of the price of the goods sold. The law on the subject has thus to be understood as above." * We are in agreement with the abovesaid exposition of law. 5. The tax case therefore fails and is dismissed, but without costs.