S. ANANDA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS tax revision case is at the instance of the dealer/assessee against the order of the sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T. A. No. 895 of 1989, dated 20th April, 1993. ( 2 ) THE Petitioner is a dealer engaged in the manufacturing of rolling shutters, collapsible gates, grills etc. During the assessment year 1985-86, the assessing authority while framing the assessment granted exemption on the disputed turnover of Rs. 3,27,091. 00-, accepting the contention of the petitioner that the said turnover relates to receipts from works contract in supplying and fixing of shutters, grills etc. , for the period up to 30th June 1985. The said assessment order was revised by the Deputy Commissioner and withdrew the exemption and subjected the disputed turnover to tax, as according to him, the turnover relates to the sale of shutters, grills etc. , and not relates to the works contract. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal to the sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. ( 3 ) THE Petitioner contended that the assessing authority accepted its contention and treated the turnover relates to the disputed receipts as related to the works contract and granted exemption and the deputy Commissioner was not justified in withdrawing the said exemption. According to the dealer, the supply of such rolling shutters, grills etc. , to the customers and fixing of such shutters, grills as per the contract, is a continuous work and amounts to works contract and not a sale. The tribunal, however, disagreed with the contention of the Petitioner and confirmed the view of the Deputy Commissioner, after referring to some judgments of this Court. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner/ dealer is before the Court. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Tribunal had committed an error in upholding the order of the deputy Commissioner, which had revised the assessment granting exemption to the petitioner. It was stated that the Tribunal relied upon certain decisions of this Court, which are not on the issue and which are distinguishable on facts and therefore the decision rendered by the Tribunal is illegal and unsustainable. It was stated that the Tribunal relied upon certain decisions of this Court, which are not on the issue and which are distinguishable on facts and therefore the decision rendered by the Tribunal is illegal and unsustainable. It was specifically stated tha the Court below referred to the decision of this Court in the case of anumolu Seshagiri Rao and Company vs. State of andhra Pradesh, where the issue was relating to the supply and staking of hard stone ballast of a particular size, which on its own facts, is totally different from the one in question. He also contended that the tribunal referred to and relied upon a decision in the case of M/s. Lloyd Sales corporation, Panjagutta vs. The State of andhra Pradesh, where the issue was whether the supply of Air Conditioners by the assessee and installation there of would amount to a works contract or a sale. Even in that case also the facts are totally different from the present one. Therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel specifically relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court - one in the case of Vanguard R. S. ands. Works vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and another in the case of Sentinel R. S. ande. Co. P. Ltd. , vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax. Relying upon the above two decisions, the learned counsel contended that the facts of the present case are almost identical to the facts of the above two cases, which were rendered by the apex Court and therefore, the contention of the Petitioner has to be accepted. ( 5 ) THE learned Special Government pleader for Taxes, on the other hand, supported the order of the Tribunal. The learned counsel referred to and relied upon the definition of the works contract, contained in Section 2 (l) (t) of the A. P. General Sales Tax Act. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the terms of the contract dearly show that the delivery was ex-godown and ex-works at Sanathnagar, which is the place of manufacture of the goods by the dealer. Thereafter, it is the responsibility and the risk of the other party receiving the. goods and not the responsibility and risk of the dealer. Thereafter, it is the responsibility and the risk of the other party receiving the. goods and not the responsibility and risk of the dealer. It is, therefore contended that the Tribunal considered the terms of the contract and gave a categorically finding that the terms of contract show that it is only a sale and not works contract; therefore, there is no merit in the present revision. The learned counsel also relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Hindustan Shipyard limited vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and also the decision of the Apex Court in the same case upholding the decision of this Court. ( 6 ) FROM the above, the issue to be considered is whether the manufacture and supply of rolling shutters, collapsible gates, grills etc. , as per the terms of the contract, would amount to works contract or a sale ? ( 7 ) THOUGH the Assessing Officer accepted the claim of the Petitioner that it amounts to works contract and granted exemption, the Deputy Commissioner revised the said order withdrawing the exemption and the said order of the Deputy commissioner was upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence on jecord including the terms of the contract, recorded the following finding:"it is clear from a perusal of the contract forms, invoices etc. , produced by the appellant before the revisional authority that it is specifically mentioned in those documents that delivery was ex-godown and ex-works at Sanathnagar. which is the place of manufacture of the goods by the appellant. It is also mentioned in the said documents that cement, sand, labour etc. , for fixing up the shutters, grills and other materials at the works of the customers should be provided to the fitter by the customers at their own costs. In some of those contract forms and order forms it is specifically mentioned that the customer himself had transported the material from the place of the appellant by using his own vehicle. It is also found mentioned in those documents that the risk and responsibility of the appellant cease soon after the goods leave his factory. In some of those contract forms and order forms it is specifically mentioned that the customer himself had transported the material from the place of the appellant by using his own vehicle. It is also found mentioned in those documents that the risk and responsibility of the appellant cease soon after the goods leave his factory. The appellant had also produced copies of debit vouchers relating to payment of fitting charges before the revisional authority, which are available in the revision file and it is dear from a perusal of the said debit vouchers that fitting charges were separately charged and they were in addition to the price of the goods supplied. It is dear from all such terms and conditions of the contract form, invoices etc. , produced by the appellant himself that the transactions amount to sale of rolling shutters, grills etc. , which were supplied to the customers and that there was no indivisible works contract for supply and erection of the material at the place of the customers. "after recording the above finding, the tribunal referre d to the guidelines laid down by this Court in the case of P. S. and company vs. State of Andhra Pradesh to decide whether a particular contract is for sale or for work and labour. After referring to the guidelines in the above said case and also considering two other decisions, referred to earlier, concluded that in the present case, it is seen from the perusal of the contents of the contract forms, invoices, debit vouchers etc. , that the contract that was entered into between the parties, was mainly for the supply of rolling shutters, grills etc. , and that the labour involved for fixing such materials at the place of the customers was only ancillary and incidental to the main contract. In that view of the finding, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner. The learned counsel strongly relied upon the two judgments of the Apex Court in support of his contention. In the case of Vanguard R. S. ands. Works (supra) there is a categorical finding by the Apex Court that the process involved in the fabrication of a rolling shutter and its actual fitting to the premises at the site was a continuous one and was completed only when erection was completed in every way. In the case of Vanguard R. S. ands. Works (supra) there is a categorical finding by the Apex Court that the process involved in the fabrication of a rolling shutter and its actual fitting to the premises at the site was a continuous one and was completed only when erection was completed in every way. The price charged by the assessee from the owner of the premises was one lump sum without at all specifying as to what part was meant for the materials used or fabricated and what part for the services or labour put in by the assessee. On the above findings, the apex Court upheld the order of the High court holding that it is only a works contract and not a sale. In the case Sentinel R. S. and E Co. P. Ltd. (supra), the assessee company entered into a contract for fabrication, supply, erection and installation of two rolling shutters in two sheds belong to a company for a price, which was inclusive of charges for erection at site. The contract provided, among others, that the delivery of the goods was to be ex-works and once the delivery was affected rejection claims would not be entertained. All masonry works required before and/or after erection was to be carried out by the Company at its own cost. Payments were to be made on overall measurements, which should be checked by the company before installation. The actual transportation charges were to be in addition to the price stipulated in the contract and the terms of payment provided 25% advance, 65% against delivery and remaining 10% after completion of erection and handing over of shutters to the satisfaction of the company. On the above facts, whether the contract was a contract for sale or a contract for work and labour , the High Court held, agreeing with the sales Tax Tribunal, that the contract was a divisible contract, which essentially consisted of two contracts-one for the supply of rolling shutters for money and the other for service and labour and that the amount payable at the stage of delivery represented the sale price of rolling shutters and it was liable to sales tax. On appeal, the apex Court reversed the said finding and held that the contract was one single and indivisible contract and the erection and installation of the rolling shutters was as much a fundamental part of the contract as the fabrication and supply. The contract was clearly and indisputably a contract for work and labour and not a contract for sale. On consideration of the facts, the Apex court gave a finding that the contract was an inseparable and a continuous and compact one. But in the present facts of the case that are recorded by the Tribunal, we not find that there is any such continuous and compact single contract. The liability and the risk of the manufacturer/dealer would be complete as soon as they are manufactured and delivered at the godown of the Petitioner. Thereafter, it is the responsibility and the risk of the purchaser. The Tribunal, in fact, has even recorded a finding that the supplied material was transported by the purchaser by using their own vehicles. The material also shows that the fitting charges were separately charged by debit vouchers. Therefore, we do not find that there is any merit in the contention of the Petitioner that the contract is indivisible. In view of the above finding, the decisions of the Apex Court relied upon by the Petitioner are not of any help. ( 8 ) THE learned Government Pleader relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Hindustan Shipyard Limited (supra ). Though in the clauses of the contract it was provided that the property in goods is transferred to the owner upon the payment of the first instalment itself, in respect of the ships that were built by the Petitioner- company, it was held that it is not a works contract, but it is only a sale of ship supplied by the petitioner company. But it is only a sale of ship supplied by the petitioner company. The terms used in the contract are explained that they were used in a limited sense so as to prevent the builder from dealing with in any other manner. The said decision rendered by this court was upheld by the Apex Court. ( 9 ) UNDER the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present tax revision case and, therefore, the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.