ORDER P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J. For the assessment year 1976-77 the petitioner while effecting inter-State sales of cables admittedly included excise duty in the sale bills and collected tax on the sale price including the excise duty, suffered assessment and paid the tax. Almost four years later the petitioner preferred a revision petition to the Deputy Commissioner under the then existing provisions contending that the excise duty was refunded to the buyers on account of the alleged claim made by them. The Deputy Commissioner declined to exercise suo motu revisional power by his order dated May 20, 1982. The Deputy Commissioner found no valid reason for not making the claim before the assessing authority and for keeping quiet all these years. Against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision. Before the Tribunal, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in State of A.P. v. Ranka Cables - Pvt. Ltd. [1990] 78 STC 111. The same decision is cited before us. The Tribunal rightly distinguished that decision for the reason that excise duty has not been included and collected as part of the sale price. The analysis of the bills revealed the following facts in that case : "These bills show that after mentioning the price, the assessee added excise duty at 5 per cent ad valorem. Then towards the end of the bills, he deducted the very same amount of excise duty in view of the likely reimbursement under the Supplementary Cash Assistance Scheme. In other words, the sale bills did not include the excise duty. It was included at the top, no doubt, but was deducted immediately in the light of the said scheme." Thus, the net effect of such billing was that excise duty did not enter into the sale price collected from the buyers. The basis of the claim in the present case is vastly different. The petitioner claims to have refunded to the buyers long after the duty was collected. The petitioner realised it as sale price, turned it over in the business and even collected tax thereon but claims to have refunded the same some time later. The basis of the claim in the present case is vastly different. The petitioner claims to have refunded to the buyers long after the duty was collected. The petitioner realised it as sale price, turned it over in the business and even collected tax thereon but claims to have refunded the same some time later. The subsequent event of refund even if it is true, does not by itself show that the sale consideration received by the petitioner was not inclusive of excise duty. If the amounts collected towards excise duty was refunded at a later stage in view of the alleged claims made by the buyers, it does not ipso facto follow that the excise duty must be excluded from the sale consideration. The subsequent arrangement between the petitioner and the buyer, for reasons not apparent from the record, cannot be the basis to claim that the sale consideration does not include excise duty. Such refund was not contemporaneous to the sale transaction. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, the exact circumstances leading to the alleged reimbursement to the purchasers are not forthcoming. We cannot, therefore, say that the Tribunal has committed any illegality in dismissing the appeal. The T.R.C. is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.