M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS group of seven appeals are directed against an order dated July 30, 1991, passed by the deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Admn.), Davangere Division, Davangere. The authority was concerned with seven assessments relating to the appellants' firm spanning the years 1980-81 and 1986-87. Briefly stated, the appellants are dealers in beedies and it was their case that they were receiving the beedies from M/s. Ganesh Beedies who were the manufacturers from their various units and used to store them at a place called Doddabathi which is situated some distance outside the local area of Chitradurga. According to the appellants out of the total stocks that used to be received at this depot, a certain percentage was used for supply to various local areas where the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into local Areas for consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act was in operation. They however contended that at is the normal practice another sector of the goods was loaded in vans and was supplied to various customers of theirs in the mofussil and rural areas and that consequently in respect of this sector/category of goods that they were not liable to any entry tax. The assessing authority who had passed the assessment orders in question for these years has stated in the assessment orders that on a verification of the various records produced before him he was satisfied that the case did in fact fall into two categories and in each assessment order he has quantified the goods sold within the local areas where the Act is applicable and has assessed the tax payable thereon as prescribed by law. In respect of the goods sold or consumed in the area where the Act was not applicable, the assessing officer has exempted the appellants from payment of tax. ( 2 ) THE revisional authority exercising powers under section 15 of the Act issued a notice dated february 16, 1991, wherein he stated that the assessment does not appear to have been correctly done; that it appears to have been concluded without proper verification of the records and furthermore that the end result was prejudicial to the department and he therefore called upon the appellants to show cause as to why those assessments should not be revised. The partner of the appellants appeared before the appellate authority and he reiterated the position as stated in their reply, than in respect of those goods that can be demonstrated to have been physically carried within the local area and sold and consumed outside that jurisdiction, no tax was leviable. The revisional authority however took the view that there was nothing on record to indicate that the set up at Doddabathi was in any way connected with the appellants' firm which was based at chitradurga and which admittedly came within the ambit of the Act and he therefore came to the conclusion that as far as the law is concerned, the entire quantity of beedies would be liable to tax in so far as it is deemed to have been received and sold by the firm within the local area. It is against this order that the present set of appeals have been directed. ( 3 ) WE have heard the appellants' learned advocate and the learned advocate who represents the department. We have also perused the records of the case and considered the law on the point. The principal contention canvassed on behalf of the appellants is that it was wholly irrelevant as to whether the assessee had in fact stated or demonstrated that the depot at Doddabathi formed part and parcel of his business or that it was part of his firm. The real point involved is the question as to the incidence of consumption. Appellants' advocate has in this regard placed strong reliance on two decisions, the first of them being a Division Bench decision reported in 1991 (1 )Karlj112 , [1993 ]89 STC221 (Kar ) in the case of Siddhagiri v. Entry Tax Officer and the second decision is reported in [1994] 95 STC 5. This is a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Entry Tax Officer, Bangalore v. Chandanmal Champalal and co. This is a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Entry Tax Officer, Bangalore v. Chandanmal Champalal and co. Learned counsel relies on the ratio of these two decisions wherein the courts have examined the law on the point and have very conclusively laid down that even in those of the cases where goods may be brought into a local area which attracts the entry tax, if it is physically demonstrated that they are resold for purposes of consumption outside that local area and provided it is demonstrated that the goods are in fact carried within the local area for this purpose and are in fact consumed or used up in an area outside where the provisions of the Act are not applicable, no entry tax is leviable. On the basis of this principle, learned counsel submits that the order of the revisional authority is clearly erroneous and that the huge amount of tax that the appellants have been asked to pay for the seven years in question is wholly without jurisdiction. He demonstrates that the record of the case as far as the factual aspect is concerned is undisputed. The figures which were accepted by the assessing officer have been verified and found to be correct by the revisional authority. In this view of the matter, it is his contention that there was no ground whatsoever either factual or legal to have saddled the appellants with the additional tax burden. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the department, it has been submitted that there is considerable scope for defending the department's actin as far as the present cases are concerned. The submission proceeds on the footing that even though the goods may have been physically brought to doddabathi, as far as the firm is concerned admittedly it is located and is doing business where the provisions of the Act are applicable and it is further submitted that the only ground on which they claim outside sales and consumption is that the goods have been physically loaded into vans and carried into some outside areas and delivered to customers. As far as this aspect is concerned, the learned advocate submits that there is no conclusive, supportive material to demonstrate that in fact the goods have been consumed in those areas even though the assessees contend that this is the position. As far as this aspect is concerned, the learned advocate submits that there is no conclusive, supportive material to demonstrate that in fact the goods have been consumed in those areas even though the assessees contend that this is the position. ( 5 ) ON the material placed before us, we are of the view that had there been any dispute with regard to the correctness of the manner in which the figures have been bifurcated, the State would have been fully justified in having assessed the whole of the goods as being leviable for purposes of entry tax. In the present instance, however after verification the assessing authority has accepted the correctness of the facts that were adduced before him. This would mean that the assessing authority was satisfied about the fact that as far as the portion of the goods on which exemption is claimed, they were not sold or consumed in the local area. The same is the position after verification when the case came before the revisional authority and even he had no occasion to dispute the correctness of these facts. Once that position is established, then the decision of the revisional authority would be clearly rendered erroneous for the reason that the real test which the law requires in cases of this type is as to where has the ultimate use or consumption of the goods taken place. On the record before us in respect of the category of goods where the appellants claim that goods were sold and consumed outside the local area, we have no reason to dispute the correctness of the findings. Applying those findings, the law would require that the sector of goods in question would have to be exempted from the levy of entry tax. ( 6 ) IN the result, this set of appeals is liable to succeed. The impugned order dated July 30, 1991, passed by the revisional authority is quashed and set aside and the earlier assessment orders are upheld. In the circumstances of the appeals, there shall be no order as to costs. ( 7 ) THE learned advocate who represents the appellants points out that under the interim order passed by this Court they were required to deposit 50 per cent of the additional tax with the department which they have in fact done. In the circumstances of the appeals, there shall be no order as to costs. ( 7 ) THE learned advocate who represents the appellants points out that under the interim order passed by this Court they were required to deposit 50 per cent of the additional tax with the department which they have in fact done. Since it has been held that this amount is not due from the appellants, the department shall adjust the same against the future tax dues of the appellants.