JUDGMENT K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. - The Revenue is the petitioner in both the revisions. The same assessee is the respondent in both the cases. The revisions are filed against the common order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam, dated January 27, 1993. We are concerned with the assessment year 1979-80. T.A. No. 223 of 1987 was an appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Tribunal T.A. No. 34 of 1988 was one filed by the Revenue. Both the appeals were filed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1979-80. 2. In the appeal filed by the assessee (T.A. No. 223 of 1987), the only plea urged was that the rubber cess paid by the assessee-manufacturer to the Rubber Board will not form part of its purchase turnover. The Appellate Tribunal accepted this plea based on the decision in Madras Rubber Factory Limited v. State of Kerala [1989] 74 STC 56 (Ker) [FB] and held that the rubber cess paid by the assessee-manufacturer to the Rubber Board is not includible in its purchase turnover of rubber. In the appeal filed by the Revenue (T.A. No. 34 of 1988), one of the pleas urged was that the assessee is using synthetic rubber for manufacturing superior quality tread rubber and repairing materials and, therefore, the tax leviable is 12 per cent and not 10 per cent as held by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellate Tribunal adverted to the finding of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to the effect that the Revenue could not establish that the assessee used synthetic rubber in the manufacture of tread rubber; there was no material to say so and in the absence of materials, the explanation of the assessee was accepted. The Appellate Tribunal held that the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in holding that there was no material to hold that the assessee had used synthetic rubber in the manufacture of tread rubber. This plea put forward by the Revenue was negatived by the Appellate Tribunal in the common order. 3. T.R.C. No. 136 of 1993 is filed against T.A. No. 223 of 1987 and T.R.C. No. 137 of 1993 is filed against T.A. No. 34 of 1988. The common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is in challenge at the instance of the Revenue. 4. We heard counsel for the Revenue, Senior Government Pleader Mr. 3. T.R.C. No. 136 of 1993 is filed against T.A. No. 223 of 1987 and T.R.C. No. 137 of 1993 is filed against T.A. No. 34 of 1988. The common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is in challenge at the instance of the Revenue. 4. We heard counsel for the Revenue, Senior Government Pleader Mr. V. C. James. 5. It is clear that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Madras Rubber Factory's case [1989] 74 STC 56, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the cess paid by the assessee-manufacturer to the Rubber Board is not includible in its purchase turnover. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding so. 6. On the second aspect, the Appellate Tribunal found that the finding of the assessing authority that the assessee had used synthetic rubber in the manufacture of tread rubber is based on no material. The plea of the assessee that it has not done so was accepted. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was held justified in holding that the assessee is liable only to pay 10 per cent tax. Before us, counsel for the Revenue was not able to point out any material to show that the Appellate Tribunal committed any error of law on this score. 7. The common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal does not disclose any error of law nor has the Appellate Tribunal failed to decide any question of law. The revisions are without merit. They are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.