JUDGMENT Venkataswami, J. - Learned counsel on both sides agree that the two questions that arise for consideration in this appeal are covered by two decisions, one of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Suguna Agencies reported in [1991] 81 STC 33 and another of the Allahabad High Court in Brooke Bond India Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in [1982] 51 STC 357. The first question is, when an assessee purchases a motor locally and sells separately to be fitted in a wet grinder, whether that has to be subjected to tax once again after such fitting in. This question has been decided in favour of the assessee in [1991] 81 STC 33 (Mad.) (State of Tamil Nadu v. Suguna Agencies). The head-note in that case reads as follows : "The respondent - dealer purchased grinders and electric motors separately paying sales tax, attached the motors to the grinders and sold them to consumers. The Tribunal held that the grinders after being attached with electric motors, did not change their identity and that there being no in-built electric motor in the grinder, it could not be identified as an electrical appliance under entry 41-B of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and that therefore the grinders could not be taxed again. On a revision petition filed by the Revenue : Held, dismissing the petition, that there was no reason to differ from the finding of the Tribunal." The above ruling clearly applies to the facts of this case. The second point is on the question of levying penalty for belated filing of return under section 12(5)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Here also, the question is covered by the decision reported in [1982] 51 STC 357 (All.) (Brooke Bond India Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax). Not only that, the Joint Commissioner, without any discussion, set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on this point. In view of the reported decisions mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.