Judgment :- K.A. Nayar, J. The four tax revision cases were referred to the Full Bench doubting the correctness of the Division Bench decision reported in Dy. Commissioner of Sales tax v. Burmah Shell Co. Ltd., (1981) 48 STC 37 in the background of the subsequent Full Bench decision in Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1989 (1) KLT 827 = (1989) 74 STC 56) and the Supreme Court decision in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 59 STC 277. The facts of the case have been stated in the referring order. 2. The tax revision cases arose out of the common order passed by the Kerala Salestax Appellate Tribunal Additional Bench, Ernakulam. The first two cases related to the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, and the other two cases related to the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. The common question which arises for consideration is whether excise duty paid by the petitioner in respect of goods transferred outside the State of Kerala formed part of the purchase turnover liable to tax under S.SA of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. 3. The assessee is an oil company dealing in petroleum products. The petroleum products in question were manufactured by Cochin Refineries Ltd. (for short 'CRL'), another oil company. CRL is permitted to store the manufactured products, without payment of duty, in bonded warehouse and it did so. CRL sold the goods to Indian Oil Corporation (for short 'IOC') and IOC in turn sold the products in question to the petitioner, viz. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation (for short 'HPC'). There was no sales tax payable by oil companies in respect of sale of petroleum products if the sale is from one Oil Company to another oil company. CRL, IOC and HPC are all oil companies and therefore, no question of payment of tax arose in the sales of petroleum products by CRL to IOC and IOC to HPC. 4. Petroleum products manufactured by CRL are excisable goods and CRL therefore, has to pay excise duty at the rate set forth in the first schedule of the Central Excise Act as it then stood, per kilolitres of the goods produced. Levy of excise duty is provided for in the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 (for short 'Act') and Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short 'Rules'). Levy of excise duty is provided for in the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 (for short 'Act') and Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short 'Rules'). Rule 7 requires every person who produces excisable goods or who store such goods in a warehouse to pay duty leviable at such time and place to such person as designated by the rules. R.9 provides for the time and manner of payment of duty. No excisable goods shall be removed from any place where they are produced or manufactured until excise duty leviable thereon has been paid. But such goods may be deposited without payment of duty in storeroom or other place of storage approved by the Collector under the rules or in a warehouse appointed or licensed under. R.140 of the Central Excise Rules. Such goods were kept in the bonded warehouse of CRL and the transfer was effected from the bonded warehouse to bonded warehouse of IOC and HPC and no excise duty was actually paid. In short, IOC issued regular bills to HPC indicating only the value of goods sold. Excise duty is paid only when goods are removed from the bonded warehouse of HPC. 5. HPC sold the goods inside the State after removing the same from the bonded warehouse. Salestax was imposed on such sale by HPC taking into account excise duty element as well. The assessee also despatched goods outside the State of Kerala after paying excise duty on such removal. The assessee has not offered for assessment the amount representing excise duty paid on the bonded purchase of goods which were transferred out of the State of Kerala. The assessee took the view that it is liable to pay purchase tax only on the price paid to the IOC and as the payment of excise duty was made by it directly to the Government, it will not form part of the purchase price of oil paid to the IOC. The assessing authority did not accept the contention of the assessee and, therefore, levied purchase tax under S.SA of the Kerala General Salestax Act on the turnover of purchase in respect of the quantity removed outside the State of Kerala including excise duty paid by the assessee. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax ami Salestax (Appeals) accepted the contentions of the assessee holding that excise duty cannot form part of the turnover. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax ami Salestax (Appeals) accepted the contentions of the assessee holding that excise duty cannot form part of the turnover. Second appeals were filed by the Stale and, allowing the appeals filed by the State of Kerala, the Tribunal held that excise duty paid by the assessee company is in discharge of the liability of the manufacturer, the Cochin Refineries Limited. The Tribunal found that when assessee company paid excise duty leviable, it was only discharging its contractual obligations arising out of the bond executed under the Central Excise Rules. 1n that view of the matter, excise duty paid is includible as part of the purchase turnover liable to be taxed under S.SA of the Act. It is against those decisions of the Tribunal the above Tax Revision cases were filed. 6. Indisputably the assessee is liable to purchase tax under S.SA in respect of the petroleum products despatched by the assessee outside the State. The only question is whether the excise duty paid by the assessee will also form part of the purchase turn over. Admittedly, the assessee-registered dealer, in the course of its business, purchased from another registered dealer, IOC, goods which are liable to tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and despatched the same outside the Stale in circumstances in which tax is payable under S.SA of the Kerala General Salestax Act. Therefore purchase tax has to be paid by the assessee on the taxable turnover relating to the purchase of oil. Taxable turnover has been defined to mean the turnover on which a dealer is liable to pay lax after making the allowable deduction from his total turnover, and excise duty is not one of the allowable deduction from the total turnover. Turnover has been defined to mean aggregate amount for which the goods are either bought or sold, supplied or distributed by a dealer and shall include any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods sold at the time of, or before, the delivery thereof or any cash or other discount on the price allowed. It is not disputed that if the products are to be released for local sales, the assessee has to pay excise duty before the product are released from the bonded warehouse. It is not disputed that if the products are to be released for local sales, the assessee has to pay excise duty before the product are released from the bonded warehouse. The same is the case if the products are to be released from the bonded warehouse for transport outside the State. The question therefore, is whether the purchase turnover of HPC will take in the excise duty element as well. As stated already, the sale bills issued by the IOC to HPC admittedly takes in only the price of oil and not the excise duty element. Excise duty has to be paid by the HPC as and when it released the goods from its bonded warehouse. 4. Before considering the decided cases under the Salestax Act on the question, it will be advantageous to examine the provisions of the Central Excise Act. S3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides for levy and collection of duty. The levy and collection of duties of excise shall be in such manner as may be prescribed. The excisable goods and the rates are set forth during the relevant lime in the first schedule. Duly have to be paid on all excisable goods other than sail which are produced or manufactured in India. The Central Government is given power by notification in the Official Gazette to fix the tariff values of any article enumerated in the first schedule. In respect of petroleum products it is seen from the first schedule that the rate is mentioned per kilolitre of petroleum products. R.9 provides that no excisable goods shall be removed from any place where they are produced or manufactured until excise duty leviable thereon has been paid at such place and in such manner as is prescribed in the rules, or as the Collector may require. But such goods can be deposited without payment of duty in a storeroom or other places of storage approved by the Collector under R.27 or R.47 or a warehouse appointed or licensed under R.140. We are not concerned with R.27 in this case. R.47 stales that the manufacturer shall provide a store room or other place of storage a I his premises for depositing goods made on the same premises without payment of duty. We are not concerned with R.27 in this case. R.47 stales that the manufacturer shall provide a store room or other place of storage a I his premises for depositing goods made on the same premises without payment of duty. If the manufacturer undertakes to pay duly on all such goods and clears them immediately on completion of manufacture the Collector may exempt him from providing such storeroom or other place of storage. Every such storeroom or place shall be declared by the manufacturer and approved by the Collector. Further, where the provisions of Chapter VII of the rule have been extended by the Central Government by notification in the official gazette to any excisable goods, every such storeroom or other place of storage in the premises of factory manufacturing such goods shall be deemed to be a warehouse licensed under R.140. There is a requirement on the manufacturer to maintain an entry book in proper form wherein he has to write and enter in the proper column the date of deposit, removal, full description, quantity, weight and value of goods so deposited and removed. R.48 says that every manufacturer of excisable goods will have to execute a bond in the proper form with such security as the Collector may require, that all such goods prepared upon his premises will be produced for charge of duty or deposited in a store room or other place of storage approved by the Collector under R.47. No such goods will be removed from the approved premises before proper duty has been paid except as provided in the rules. Where the amount of bond is inadequate, the Collector may demand such bond or additional security. R.49 states that payment of duty shall not be required in respect of excisable goods made in a factory until they are about to be issued out of the place or premises specified in R.49 or are about to be removed from the store room or other place of storage provided by the Collector under R.47. The manufacturer is required to pay on demand the duty leviable on any goods which are not accounted for. The manufacturer is required to pay on demand the duty leviable on any goods which are not accounted for. The rule specifically mentions the excisable goods made in the factory to which provisions of Chapter VII of the Rules have been extended by notification by the Central Government can be removed from the factory to any warehouse licensed under R.140 for storage of such goods and situated outside the licensed premises of the factory subject to such exemption, limitations and conditions made from time to time and specified by the Central Government. There is further provision in R.49 for allowing excisable goods to be removed from the factory without payment of duty. But the manufacturer of such excisable goods has to execute a bond in the proper form with such security as the Collector may approve. R.139 makes the warehousing provision applicable only to notified goods and under that petroleum products have been notified for removing without payment of duty from one warehouse licensed under R.140 for storage of such goods in warehouses located at other places, among other places in Ambalamugal and Cochin (Willingdon Island). R.140 provides for appointment and licensing of warehouses as well as forms and conditions of bond. The Collector is authorised to approve and appoint public warehouses and also licence private warehouses for the storage of excisable goods on which duty has not been paid. lt also provides in which manner and on what terms the goods may be stored and in what manner such warehouse shall be secured by lock and may require the keeper of the public warehouse of the licensee to furnish bond with such surety for such amount and under such conditions binding himself to pay the duty on the goods deposited therein and safe removal of such goods from warehouse to warehouse and for due observance of the terms and conditions of the Act and Rules. Sub-rule (2) of R.140 says that the Central Government by general or special order, declare any premises to be a refinery and on such declaration such refinery shall be deemed to be a warehouse and therefore, the provisions of Chapter VII will apply in relation to the goods processed or manufactured in such refinery. Sub-rule (2) of R.140 says that the Central Government by general or special order, declare any premises to be a refinery and on such declaration such refinery shall be deemed to be a warehouse and therefore, the provisions of Chapter VII will apply in relation to the goods processed or manufactured in such refinery. R.144 clearly says that every bond executed under R.140 and 164 in respect of such goods shall, unless the Collector deems a fresh bond to be necessary, continue in force notwithstanding the subsequent removal of such goods to another warehouse. R.164 relates to bond for goods lodged in a public warehouse. R.156A prescribes the procedure in respect of goods removed from one warehouse to another. The consignor in such case will present the form in triplicate to the officer in charge of the warehouse for removal. Adequate provision is made to see that the goods in one warehouse is removed to another warehouse under strict supervision of the excise authorities. R.167 says that if any owner fails to pay any sum demanded, the officer will proceed in respect of the warehoused goods where the removal procedure is adopted by the manufacturer. 8. Rule 9A is the rule prescribing the date for determination of duty and tariff valuation. It shall be the rate and valuation in force in the case of goods cleared from a factory or warehouse, on the date of the actual removal of such goods from such factory or warehouse. 9. Thus S3 read with Rr.9, 9A, 140, 157 and also Rr.173 and 173-N will show the liability of excise duty is on the manufacture. The Tribunal also found after referring to the bond executed, that the bond binds the assessee with the President of India for payment of excise duty. The appointment of a licensee under the Central Excise Rules operates as a contractual obligation on the licensee by which he covenants to pay the duty demandable on the goods stored in the warehouse to the Government of 1ndia. So when the assessee paid excise duty in the instant case, the obligation discharged is the obligation on the production of petroleum products and this obligation being primarily that of the producer, the liability discharged is that of the producer. 10. So when the assessee paid excise duty in the instant case, the obligation discharged is the obligation on the production of petroleum products and this obligation being primarily that of the producer, the liability discharged is that of the producer. 10. The nature of excise duty has been elaborately considered in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Centwy Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (TT 1992 (3) SC 382) and the decisions in Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 3 SCC 314, Mis. Ujagar Prims v. Union of India (1989 (3) SCC 488, Oriend General Industries v. Union of India, (1986) 24 ELT 527. All these decisions will show that excise duty is a duty on the production or manufacture of goods and the duty can be imposed at any convenient stage, provided its character as Excise duty is not lost. 11. But counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in McDoweIl & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (1977) 39 STC 151 and Deputy Commissioner of Sales tax v. Burmah Shell Co. Ltd. (1981) 48 STC 37. The Supreme Court, in the former decision, held that excise duty paid directly to the excise authorities of the State or deposited directly in the State exchequer in respect of Indian liquor by the buyers thereof before removing it from the distillery or from the bonded warehouse and not included in the sale bill issued by the manufacturer or the owner of the bonded warehouse could not form part of the turnover liable to tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales tax Act, 1951. The Supreme Court held in the case, after considering the nature of the excise duty being a duty on the production or manufacture of goods produced or manufactured within the country: - "In the instant cases, the excise and countervailing duties did not go into the common tills of the appellants and did not become a part of their circulating capital. We are, therefore, of the view that the sales tax authorities were not competent to include in the turnovers of the appellants the excise duty and the countervailing duty which was not charged by them but was charged by and paid directly to the excise authorities by the buyers of the liquors as stated above." Following the above decision of the Supreme Court, in Burmah Shell's case (1981) 48 STC 37 this Court held that the amount of excise duty paid by the purchaser directly to the Central Excise department on petroleum products owned by him at the stage of removal from the warehouse could not be treated as forming part of the taxable turnover of the purchaser for the purpose of S.SA. 12. But in the decision reported in Raj Sheet v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1987) 64 STC 398 a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the primary responsibility to pay excise duty was on the manufacturer and such payment is always treated as the one made on behalf of the manufacturer. Even if the purchaser pays excise duty directly to the Government, still the excise duty being the primary responsibility of the manufacturer, it will form part of the turnover of the manufacturer. The Supreme Court decision in Me Dowell's Case (39 STC 151) was referred to by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. But in the light of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Sugar Mills v. State of Rajasthan (1979) 43 STC 13 and McDowell & Company v. Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 59 STC 277 (second McDowell's case) the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the primary responsibility to pay excise duty was on the manufacturer and though it was paid directly to the Government by the purchaser, it will form part of the turnover of the manufacturer. In Hindustan Sugar Mill's case it was observed by the Supreme Court that excise duty is payable by a manufacturer and when he sells the goods, he passes on the excise duty to the purchaser. It is part of the consideration for the sale of goods and the amount represent the excise duty payable. In Hindustan Sugar Mill's case it was observed by the Supreme Court that excise duty is payable by a manufacturer and when he sells the goods, he passes on the excise duty to the purchaser. It is part of the consideration for the sale of goods and the amount represent the excise duty payable. 1n the 2nd McDowell's case also it was held that incidence of excise duty Is d reef 1 y relatable to the manufacturer though its collection can be deferred to a later state as a measure of convenience or expediency. The excise duty thus primarily is a burden which the manufacturer has to bear and even if the purchasers paid the same, the payment is not pursuant to any legal responsibility or obligation for meeting the burden. 13. In the 2nd Me Dowell's case the Supreme Court referred to the First Me Dowell's case and observed: "On an examination of the provisions of the Excise Act, the Rules framed thereunder and the pronouncements referred to above, we are of the view that the conclusion of this Court at page 921 of the Reports (at page 158 of (1977) 39 STC 151 (SC) that intending purchasers of the Indian liquors who seek to obtain distillery passes are also legally responsible for payment of the excise duty is too broadly stated. The "duty" was primarily a burden which the manufacturer had to bear and even if the purchasers paid the same under the Distillery Rules, the provisions were merely enabling and did not give rise to any legal responsibility or obligation for meeting the burden." In the 2nd Me Dowell's case the buyers of 1ndian liquor from the Me Dowells Distillery released the liquor after making payment of excise duty whereupon the bill of sale or invoice was prepared by the distillery showing the price of liquor by excluding excise duly. The account of Me Dowell's also did not contain any reference to the excise duty paid by the purchaser. Nevertheless, the Company was required to include excise duty paid by the purchaser in the taxable turnover of the Company. It is in that connection the 2nd Me Dowell's case came to be decided. There was also an amendment to the distillery rules after the first Me Dowell's case which provided that the liability for payment of excise duty was that of the manufacturer. It is in that connection the 2nd Me Dowell's case came to be decided. There was also an amendment to the distillery rules after the first Me Dowell's case which provided that the liability for payment of excise duty was that of the manufacturer. The Supreme Court referred to the various decisions viz. the Province of Madras v. Bodii Paidanna (1938-50) 1 STC 104 which laid down that it is the fact of manufacture which attracted duty even though it may be collected later. The Court then referred to the decision in R. C. Jail v. Union of India (1962) Supp. 3 SCR 436 wherein the Court observed: "The above statement of law in no way supports the argument that the excise duty cannot be collected from persons who are neither producers nor manufacturers. Its incidence certainly falls directly on the production or manufacture of goods but the method of collection will not affect the essence of the duty." The decision in Sea Customs Act (1964) SCR 787, Guruswamy & Co. v. State of Mysore (1967) 1 SCR 548, Jiillunder Rubber Goods Manufacturers Association v. Union of India (1970) 2 SCR 68 and Abdul Kadir v. State of Kerala (1976) 2 SCR 690 have been relied on for coming to the conclusion that excise duty is a levy upon goods and the taxable event is the manufacture or production of goods though the levy need not be imposed at the stage of of production or manufacture but may be imposed later. Therefore, excise duty can be collected subsequent to manufacture from persons who are neither producer nor manufacturers. The Supreme Court referred to the provisions of Rr. 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84 of the Distillery Rules and observed that: ".... These rules, therefore, do not detract from the position that payment of excise duty is the primary and exclusive obligation of the manufacturer and if payment be made under a contract or arrangement by any other person it would amount to meeting of the obligation of the manufacturer and nothing more." The Court, after referring to Hindustan Sugar Mills case (supra) found that it is immaterial to enquire as to how the amount of consideration is made up, viz. whether it includes excise duty, sales tax or freight. The sole question is what is the amount payable by the purchaser to the dealer. whether it includes excise duty, sales tax or freight. The sole question is what is the amount payable by the purchaser to the dealer. If the excise duty is to be paid by the manufacturer, though the same has not been collected by the seller when the sale is made is not very material. Since ultimately excise duty has to be paid to the Government, it may be unnecessary to collect excise duty alone from the oil company, when there is no requirement to collect sales tax from it. The Supreme Court, thereafter, ultimately held as follows: "We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that excise duty though paid by the purchaser to meet the liability of the appellant, is a part of the consideration for the sale and is includible in the turnover of the appellant. The purchaser paid the tax because the law asks him to pay it on behalf of the manufacturer." In Me Dowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (1987) 67 STC 436 the same question arose before the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, viz. inclusion of excise duty payable by the manufacturer in the turnover for the purpose of assessment to sales tax. The Court held that excise duty formed part of the turnover and was exigible to tax. The question whether cess payable and paid to the Rubber Board by the manufacturers on rubber purchased by them from owners of rubber estates under Rubber Act, 1947 and Rubber Rules 1955 form part of the purchase turnover of the manufacturers for the purpose of Kerala General Salestax Act, 1966 came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. v. State of Kerala 1989 (1) KLT 827 = (1989) 74 STC 56 and this court overruling the decision reported in Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax. Bata India Ltd. (1986) 62 STC 436 held that rubber cess paid by the manufacturers to Rubber Board is not includible in the purchase turnover of the manufacturers. Even though the rubber is produced by the growers, under the Rubber Act and Rules, the levy and collection was provided for from the manufacturers only. Therefore, cess, it was held, cannot be included in the purchase turnover of the manufacturer. This Court observed: "The decision of the Supreme Court inj.R.G. Mfg. Even though the rubber is produced by the growers, under the Rubber Act and Rules, the levy and collection was provided for from the manufacturers only. Therefore, cess, it was held, cannot be included in the purchase turnover of the manufacturer. This Court observed: "The decision of the Supreme Court inj.R.G. Mfg. Association v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 1589 clearly points out in para.6 of the judgment, that S.12(1) and 12(2) of the Act should be read together and not in isolation, that by S.12(2) the Parliament has made it clear that the Board can levy and collect the duty of excise either from the owner of a rubber estate on which the rubber is produced or from the manufacturer by whom such rubber is used, the rules make it clear how the Board should exercise its powers in the matter of levy and collection of tax, that S. 12(2) of the Act as also the Statement of Objects and Reasons point out that the Rubber Board was finding it difficult to levy and collect the duty from the owners of rubber estates and so after the amendment by S.12(2), the Board can levy and collect the duty in accordance with the rules and as per rule 33-D it is only the manufacturers who are liable to pay the amount of duty. If we understand the excise duty, as a duty in relation to manufacture or production or in connection with manufacture or production, and if S.12(1) and 12(2) of the Act should be read along with R.33-D and not in isolation, it cannot be said that after the amendment, as per S.12. of the Act read with R.33-D, the cess is charged "on the production of goods sold and it forms part of the sale consideration as held in Bata's case (1986) 62 STC 439 (Ker.) =1986 KLT 833.. The levy of cess (excise duty) as per S.12(1) and 12(2) of the Act (after the amendment) read along with rule 33-D has made a vital departure. The incidence of the levy is not on the producer or owner of the estate. The liability is cast on the manufacturer alone. The levy of cess (excise duty) as per S.12(1) and 12(2) of the Act (after the amendment) read along with rule 33-D has made a vital departure. The incidence of the levy is not on the producer or owner of the estate. The liability is cast on the manufacturer alone. In this view of the matter, we are of the view, that after the amendment of the Act in 1960, the scheme of the Act is to levy the duty on the manufacturer (alone) and collection is also made from him (alone). The levy cannot be said to be "charged" on the production of goods sold. It cannot form part of the sale consideration of the producer or the grower of rubber". All the decisions regarding the nature of excise duty have been considered in para.5 of the said decision to show that excise duty is a levy upon the manufacturer or producer in respect of the manufacture or production though the collection can be deferred to a convenient stage without altering the essential character of the levy. But the levy and collection of the cess was provided for under S.12(2) read with R.33D of the Rubber Act and Rules. The Full Bench held that cess will not form part of the purchase turnover of the manufacturer, on the facts of that case. The question whether excise duty paid by the buyer is a condition for obtaining the release of the goods can be relatable to the legal liability of the manufacturer came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the Kama take High Court in the decision in Ranganatha Associates v. State of Karnataka (1990) 78 STC 1. After referring to the 2nd Me Dowell's case, the Court held: 11. Thus it is clear that, the levy of excise duty is a charge attached to the goods manufactured, to be discharged primarily by the manufacturer and the fact that the machinery of collection comes into operation at a subsequent stage would not shift this primary responsibility of the manufacturer on the subsequent buyer of goods exclusively. The distinction between the technical concept of a "charge" of a tax, and its "collection", is implicit in this reasoning. The distinction between the technical concept of a "charge" of a tax, and its "collection", is implicit in this reasoning. When the buyer pays the excise duty as a condition for obtaining the release of the goods his payment is relatable to the legal liability of the manufacturer and thereby his payment is nothing but a payment made for and on behalf of the seller or manufacturer, as the case may be. Therefore, the condition for the payment of the excise duty, in effect, results in converting this payment as part of the consideration for the sale of the goods." In the decision in Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (1990) 7 STC 461 a Division Bench of the Madras High Court also came to the same conclusion, viz. excise duty paid by the wholesaler at the time of purchase from the manufacturer is part of the price paid for the goods and, therefore, includible in the turnover of the manufacturer. The arrangement between the manufacturer and the purchaser for payment of excise duty, will not absolve the manufacturer from the liability to pay excise duty. It is the fact of manufacture which attracts duty even though it may be collected later. The method of collection will not affect the essence of duty, but only relates to the machinery of collection for administrative convenience. The incidence of excise duty is directly relatable to the production and manufacture of the goods and the duty is primarily a burden which the manufacturers had to pay even if the purchasers paid the same under the Distillery Rules. Thus, the provisions whether contained in the Distillery Rules or the Central Excise Rules are merely enabling provisions and will not give any obligation for meeting the burden. The test to show what exactly is the purchase turnover, one has to look at the consideration paid or payable by the purchaser. Excise duty in any case will be a part of the consideration payable by the purchaser. The test to show what exactly is the purchase turnover, one has to look at the consideration paid or payable by the purchaser. Excise duty in any case will be a part of the consideration payable by the purchaser. After referring to the decision reported in Hindustan Sugar Mills case (1979) 43 STC 13, Love v. Forman Wright Builders Ltd. (1944) 1 A1i.e.r.618) and Paprika Ltd. v. Board of Trade (1944) 1 AII.E.R.372 the Madras High Court came to the conclusion that it would make no difference whether the amount of excise duty is included in the price charge of the dealer or is shown as a separate item in the bill or whether the consideration paid by the purchaser will be the actual sale consideration plus the excise duty. Even if excise duty is not included in the sale bill, in so far as the payment of excise duty is the legal liability of the manufacturer it would certainly form part of the purchase consideration of the purchaser. The High Court held as under: "From the above extracts from the judgment of the Supreme Court, in Second Me DoweWs case (1985) 59 STC 277, it is crystal clear that the incidence of excise duty falls directly on the production or manufacture of goods, but the method of collection will not affect the essence of the duty. No doubt, we have permitted the learned counsel for the petitioners to cite various authorites, but we do not think it is necessary to go into those citations in view of the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court referred to above. The attempt of Mr.C. Natarajan to distinguish the judgment of the Supreme Court by contending that the Supreme Court concerned with the Rules framed by the Andhra Pradesh Government, cannot be accepted in view of the following passage of the Supreme Court which is general in nature. The attempt of Mr.C. Natarajan to distinguish the judgment of the Supreme Court by contending that the Supreme Court concerned with the Rules framed by the Andhra Pradesh Government, cannot be accepted in view of the following passage of the Supreme Court which is general in nature. "....The °duty' was primarily a burden which the manufacturer had to bear and even if the purchasers paid the same under the Distillery Rules, the provisions were merely enabling and did not give rise to any legal responsibility or obligation for meeting the burden, (underlining ours)." From what is stated above, it will be clear that excise duty in respect of the manufacture of petroleum products is leviable on CRL and it is the liability of the Cochin Refineries to pay excise duty before removing the goods. The Tribunal also found that there was a bond for the amount to be paid and the bond binds the assessee to the President of India for payment of excise duty. The excise duty is payable by the manufacturer and, therefore, the duty paid by the assessee is in discharge of the liability of Cochin Refineries Ltd. Cochin Refineries, before removing the goods for delivery to a dealer, will have to pay excise duty. When the goods arc sold to IOC, the sale price of the products alone formed the bill amount. The collection of the central excise duty payable by the CRL. was postponed as collection at that time will not serve any purpose and more so when there is no sales tax also to be collected. By the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, especially the provision for depositing in bonded warehouse without payment of duty, and by the requirement of executing bonds, the ultimate collection of the central excise duty is well secured. There is a definite finding by the Tribunal that the petitioner has only discharged the contractual liability of CRL in paying the excise duty. The bonds executed by the CRL, IOC and HPC are not part of the document before us. In the circumstances, the view taken by the Tribunal that, the assessee has only discharged the liability of CRL while paying excise duty cannot be faulted. The ultimate discharge of the liability by HPC is a liability of the CRL. The view to the contrary taken by the Deputy Commissioner is not correct in law. In the circumstances, the view taken by the Tribunal that, the assessee has only discharged the liability of CRL while paying excise duty cannot be faulted. The ultimate discharge of the liability by HPC is a liability of the CRL. The view to the contrary taken by the Deputy Commissioner is not correct in law. We confirm that the excise duty paid by the petitioner was in discharge of the liability of the CRL and, therefore, it will form part of the purchase turnover of the petitioner for the purpose of S.5A of the Kerala General Salestax Act. In the light of the above discussion we hold that the decision inDy. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company Ltd. (1981) 48 STC 37 does not lay down the correct law and we overrule the same. The tax revision cases are, therefore, dismissed.