Judgment :- N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. The tax revision is filed against an order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras (Main Bench) (short, "the Appellate Tribunal") in T.A. No. 576/83 dated May 17, 1983, relating to the assessment year 1977-78. 2. Thiruvalargal Chettiar Industrial Corporation Limited, G-4, Vyasarpadi Industrial Estate, Madras-39, is an assessee on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Washermanpet Assessment Circle, Madras. The assessee-dealer was assessed to tax for the assessment year 1977-78 on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 5, 07, 529. The assessing officer, on examination of the records of the assessee found that the following inter-State sales of paper boxes to the extent of Rs. 1, 17, 756 has escaped assessment under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"). 1. George Haize Vizag Rs. 51, 313 2. Pack Fresh Sea Food Vizag Rs. 25, 947 3. Guzarth Exports Porbander Rs. 27, 137 4. Kerala Food Packers Alleppery Rs. 11, 420 5. Kerala Food Packers Alleppery Rs. 1, 939 Rs. 1, 17, 756 The said turnover was exempted in the original assessment treating the same as sales for export under section5(3) of the Act. The assessing officer on the view that there was no evidence to establish that the paper boxes as such were exported in pursuance of the contract from the foreign buyers, proposed to revise the assessment and assess that part of the turnover of Rs. 1, 17, 756 at the rate of 10 per cent on the score that the said turnover was not covered by "C" form. Accordingly, the assessing officer issued a notice to the assessee-dealer calling for its objection against the proposed assessment, and the assessee-dealer in their reply submitted that the transaction was liable for exemption under section5(3) of the Act as the foreign contract includes export of cartons also. The assessee placed reliance on the decision reported in Moncompu Egg Store v. State of Kerala (Ker) and an order of the Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 1311/78 dated January 18, 1978 and contended that the sales effected were second sales eligible for exemption. The assessee placed reliance on the decision reported in Moncompu Egg Store v. State of Kerala (Ker) and an order of the Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 1311/78 dated January 18, 1978 and contended that the sales effected were second sales eligible for exemption. The assessing officer considered the objections raised by the assessee and held that the assessee sold the cartons for local exporter who have entered into contract with foreign buyers for export of sea foods and there was no specific contract entered into with the foreign buyers for export of cartons as such. In this view of the matter, he held that the exemption under section5(3) of the Act would not apply and the sales which were inter-State sales were liable for taxation under the Act. He, therefore, assessed the escaped turnover at Rs. 1, 17, 756 for the assessment year 1977-78. 3. The assessee-dealer preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and reiterated the same contentions. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the goods referred under section5(3) of the Act cannot include the packing materials as packing goods were not the subject-matter of the contracts for export. He held that the goods which were exported under the contract between the exporter and the foreign buyer includes only the goods which were actually exported, but cannot be expected to cover packing materials involved in the export of such goods. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner placed reliance on an order of the Appellate Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 1696 of 1978 and 1762 of 1978 dated February 26, 1980 and held that the assessee was not entitled for exemption on the sale of the packing materials. In this view of the matter, he dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. 4. The assessee carried the matter further by preferring an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Before the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee contended that according to the terms of the contract and the purchase order placed by the foreign buyer, the sea foods which were required to be exported should be packed properly and, therefore, it was submitted that the packing materials were exempt under section5(3) of the Act. It was also submitted that the decision of this Court in the case of Packwell Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, does not apply to the facts and is distinguishable from the facts of the case. It was also submitted that the decision of this Court in the case of Packwell Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, does not apply to the facts and is distinguishable from the facts of the case. The Appellate Tribunal, however, held that though there was specific mention about the nature of the packing in agreement with the foreign buyers, but it did not imply that the packing materials used for packing of the goods in the contract were exempt under section5(3) of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal also held that the goods referred to under section5(3) of the Act are the goods which were the subject-matter of the contract for the export, and since the subject-matter for the contract of the export was, "Indian Frozen Shrimps", the packing materials to pack the said goods were not eligible for exemption under section5(3) of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal held that there are no distinguishing features in this case which were not considered earlier by the Appellate Tribunal in Packwell Industries (P) Ltd. case, and therefore, the assessee was not entitled to claim exemption under section5(3) of the Act. In this view of the matter, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee has preferred tax case revision challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal. 5. Mr. S. Shanmugam, learned counsel representing Mr. C. Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that under the terms of the contract with the foreign buyer, the exporter had to export the frozen sea foods and the contract stipulated that the goods were packed properly. He, therefore, submitted that the packing materials sold by the assessee to the local exporter for packing the frozen sea foods were the items covered under section5(3) of the Act, as the sale was made for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order for or in relation to such export. He submitted that the decision of this Court in Packwell Industries case, is distinguishable from the facts of the case. He submitted that the decision of this Court in Packwell Industries case, is distinguishable from the facts of the case. He placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Catherene Traders [1 9911 (81) STC 228 and Kusum Laminating & Packaging Industries v. State of Tamil Nadu and a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Standard Packings and submitted that the sale of the packing material by the assessee was exempted under section5(3) of the Act. 6. Mr. Ravi Raja Pandian, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) submitted that the decision of this Court in Packwell Industries case would fully cover the facts of the case, and therefore, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the exemption under section5(3) of the Act for the sale of the packing material by the assessee to the exporter was not available to the assessee. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the assessee-dealer and the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes). No doubt, it is true that the contract entered into by the local exporter with the foreign buyer was for the export of frozen sea foods, but the contract also stipulated that the goods should be packed properly. It is also found the cost of the packing materials formed as the integral part of the price of the export. In this situation, the question of exemption under section5(3) of the Act has to be examined. Section 5(3) of the Act reads as under : "(1) A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of the export of the goods out of the territory of India only if the sale or purchase either occasions such export or is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods after the goods have crossed the Customs frontiers of India. (2) ............ (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the last sale or purchase of any goods preceding the sale or purchase occasioning the export of those goods out of the territory of India shall also be deemed to be in the course of such export, if such last sale or purchase took place after, and was for the purpose of complying with, the agreement or order for or in relation to such export." 8. We are of the view that the words in section5(3) of the Act," for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order for or in relation to such export' are the crucial words to find out whether the sale by the assessee of the packing materials was exempt. The packing materials are essential for the export of the sea foods, and section5(3) of the Act does not indicate that the exemption claimed should be confined to the goods contracted for export. The expression," for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order for or in relation to such export "clearly indicates that it would include the sale or purchase of packing material as well which were necessary for complying with the export order or in relation to such export. The view that the frozen sea foods can be exported without packing materials would be against any practical sense of working out any export order of frozen sea foods. It is a common knowledge that the frozen sea foods cannot be exported as such in its natural condition without packing them properly and without placing them in proper packing materials. If the sea foods were to be exported without packing them, the goods exported would go beyond its recognition during the sea voyage resulting in the importer not receiving the goods contracted for import. The concomitant of the export of the sea foods is the proper packing and the sale by the assessee of the packing material is necessary to comply with the agreement for export. It is true that the contract for exports was for the frozen sea foods, but to comply with the export order, the assessee necessarily have to pack them in the packing materials and in our view, the sale of the packing materials was effected by the assessee for the purpose of complying with the agreement in relation to the export of Indian frozen sea foods. The expression," * for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order for or in relation to such export" in section5(3) of the Act has to be given a natural import, and the packing materials, in our view, were sold by the assessee for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order for export of sea foods. The expression," * for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order for or in relation to such export" in section5(3) of the Act has to be given a natural import, and the packing materials, in our view, were sold by the assessee for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order for export of sea foods. The decision of this Court in Packwell Industries (P) Ltd. case is based on the finding rendered by the Appellate Tribunal that the packing materials were not sold for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order or in relation to export of Indian frozen shrimps. But on the other hand, the contract in the instant case, clearly stipulates the goods should be exported in a proper condition and the contract itself contemplates the packing of the frozen sea foods. In out. view, the decision of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Catherene Traders, in which one of us is a party, would apply to the facts of this case and this Court therein held that the exemption under section 5(3) cannot be limited to such goods which were required to be exported, but would extend to the packing materials as well. This Court held that the packing materials which were utilised for the packing of the goods were also subject-matter of a sale or purchase of goods as envisaged under section5(3) of the Act and this Court further held that the packing materials were also sold for the export by the purchaser as title in the goods along with the packing materials would pass on the sale was not in dispute. In a similar factual situation, this Court in Kusum Laminating & Packaging Industries v. State of Tamil Nadu, distinguished the earlier case in Packwell Industries (P) Ltd. case on the ground that the exemption in Packwell Industries (P) Ltd. case was claimed on the basis of the finding that the packing goods was the subject-matter for the contract of the export. This Court held that where the purchase order itself contemplates the subject-matter of the goods packed in a container of a particular specification, then the decision in Packwell Industries case would not apply. This Court further held that where the identity of the goods was established, the assessee would be entitled to claim exemption under section5(3) of the Act. This Court held that where the purchase order itself contemplates the subject-matter of the goods packed in a container of a particular specification, then the decision in Packwell Industries case would not apply. This Court further held that where the identity of the goods was established, the assessee would be entitled to claim exemption under section5(3) of the Act. On the facts of this case, it is clear that the identity of the goods is not lost because of the packing of the goods in the containers and the title to the packing material would pass on the sale of the goods and therefore, the penultimate sales of the container and the packing material by the assessee are exempt under section5(3) of the Act. There-fore, in our view, the decision of this Court in Kusum Laminating & Packaging Industries case as well as the Catherene Traders case would apply to the facts of this case. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has taken the same view in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Standard Packings. 9. In our view, to invoke the exemption under section5(3) of the Act, the last sale or purchase of any goods preceding the sale or purchase occasioning the export of those goods out of the territory of India should be for the purpose of export and the sale must have been for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order. In our view, both the conditions under section5(3) of the Act are fully satisfied in the present case and in that view of the matter, the Tribunal is not correct in holding that the sale of the packing materials by the assessee which are required for export of the frozen sea foods is not exempt under section 5(3) of the Act. We, therefore, allow the tax case revision. There will be no order as to costs.