S. ANANDA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS tax revision case is by the dealer directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate tribunal dated 30-11-2000 passed in TA no. 335 of 1998. The assessment relates for the assessment year 1996-97 from April to september, 1996 under the provisions of the andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) THE dealer is a public limited company, engaged in the manufacture and sale of plastic articles. The assessee claimed for the assessment year in question exemption in respect of the turnover representing the alleged sale of ball point pens, which was not accepted by the assessing Officer. Though on appeal, the appellate Deputy Commissioner remitted the matter, the assessing authority again confirmed the denial of exemption claimed by the assessee. Thereupon the assessee appealed again to the Appellate Deputy commissioner and to the Tribunal unsuccessfully. Therefore, the present revision. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the dealer contended that the assessee is a manufacturer of ball point pens, which are sold to its sister concern, which in tern exports the same to the customers in mumbai. It is stated that the documents stamped at the check-post proves that the assessee had manufactured and sold to its customers ball-point pens, which are exempted from levy of tax. The learned counsel contended that the Department conducted some enquiries behind the petitioner/dealer and basing on such material without supplying any copies of such reports, took adverse inference and decided the matter against the assessee, which is contrary to the settled principles of law. According to the learned Counsel, inspite of repeated demands even after the matter was remitted by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, the assessing authority did not provide the copies of such reports that are used by the department to hold against the assessee. Such denial of opportunity in not providing copies of the material collected by the department behind the assessee/dealer is illegal and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel even otherwise also contended that the petitioner had imported the plastic granules from Mumbai from the same parties to whom the manufactured ball point pens were sold. The imported granules were utilised for the manufacture of- ball point pens. The learned Counsel even otherwise also contended that the petitioner had imported the plastic granules from Mumbai from the same parties to whom the manufactured ball point pens were sold. The imported granules were utilised for the manufacture of- ball point pens. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification for the Department to deny the case of the petitioner/dealer. The learned Counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of ms, Machilipatnam Consumer Co-operative society v. State of A. P. , 1 APSTJ 218,. in support of his contention that the assessment framed utilising certain material collected behind the assessee, without providing copies of the same and therefore sought for setting aside the order of the Tribunal and to remit the matter to the assessing authority for giving an opportunity to the assessee, not only for supplying copies of the reports that are collected by the department but also to give an opportunity to the assessee to produce necessary material to support its case. ( 4 ) THE learned Special Government pleader for Taxes, on the other hand, supported the order of the appellate Tribunal. It is contended that de hors the material collected by the Department in the course of enquiry and investigation as to the genuineness of the alleged customers to whom the assessee-dealer had sold that manufactured ball point pens, the claim itself is not maintainable as even admittedly the assessee had only manufactured the ball point pen holders and not ball point pens. The learned Counsel contended that the appellate Tribunal specifically considered the claim of the assessee whether the alleged goods manufactured by the assessee would come within the ambit of the g. O. Ms. No. 130, Revenue, dated 14-2-1989 so as to attract the benefit of exemption and denied the benefit of exemption having found that what was, manufactured by the assessee was only ball point pens holders and not ball point pens. In the light of such finding there is absolutely no merit in the claim of the petitioner/dealer in claiming the exemption of its turnover. ( 5 ) FROM the above rival contentions the issue to be considered is whether the assessee/dealer is entitled for exemption of its turnover representing the sale of ball point pen holders? In the light of such finding there is absolutely no merit in the claim of the petitioner/dealer in claiming the exemption of its turnover. ( 5 ) FROM the above rival contentions the issue to be considered is whether the assessee/dealer is entitled for exemption of its turnover representing the sale of ball point pen holders? ( 6 ) THE dealer is a public limited company, registered on the rolls of the commercial Tax Officer, Narayanguda circle, Abids Division, Hyderabad. The dealer is engaged in the manufacture and sale of house-hold articles and industrial containers and components made of plastic, as per catalogue of goods published and offered to the public in the brand name of "unique Plastics". The company s factory is situated at Plot No. 140, Miyapur, bollaram, Narsapur, Medak District. Its registered office is at King Koti crossroads, hyderabad. Its sister concern i. e. , m/s. Mahaveer Combines is its marketing agent. For the relevant period, the assessee filed its monthly A2 Returns disclosing its turnovers as under: gross Turnover Rs. 23,44,64,690-00 exempted Turnover Rs. 22,19,09,079-00 net turnover Rs. 1,25,55,511-00 their total and gross turnovers represent the following sales as per the returns filed above: 1. 1st sales of household articles of plastic within the State rs. 1,25,55,511-00 2. Sales of stationery (written as written as ball pens in brackets) rs. 22,19,09,079-00 ( 7 ) AS the Department suspected the claim of the assessee with reference to the exemption claimed in respect of the sale of stationary of ball point pens, which do not find place in the catalogue of the goods published and offered by the assessee, the factory as well as the registered office of the assessee-company were got inspected by the Commercial Tax Officer, Basheer bagh on 4-10-1996. The inspection revealed that no such activity of the actual manufacture of ball point pens ever took place in the factory and no such stock, in any shape, either finished or semi-finished or scrap form was available at the time of the inspection. Further, the investigation with reference to the alleged sales also supported the suspicion of the Department. Therefore, the Assessing Officer negatived the claim of the assessee regarding the exemption of the turnover. Further, the investigation with reference to the alleged sales also supported the suspicion of the Department. Therefore, the Assessing Officer negatived the claim of the assessee regarding the exemption of the turnover. In fact, the assessing Officer also relied upon the statement recorded from Sri Paresh d, Chadda, whose statement was recorded on 25-9-1996, where he has confirmed that there are no purchases of refills for the purpose of manufacture or sale of ball point pens. Aggrieved by the said denial of exemption, the assessee carried the matter in appeal to the Appellate deputy Commissioner. The Appellate deputy Commissioner remitted the matter to the assessing authority for a fresh consideration with certain directions. When the matter was taken up by the assessing authority, again the assessee, except repeatedly requesting for time, did not co-operate with the assessing authority by placing any material relevant for its claim in respect of the disputed turnover. As the assessee did not co-operate with the assessing authority, the assessing authority passed the assessment denying the exemption. The same was confirmed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. When the matter came up in the second appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee again reiterated its contention that it was not provided with the material that was collected by the Department. The Tribunal ultimately gave a finding in favour of the assessee, with reference to the fictitious nature of the dealers to whom the petitioner claimed to have sold the manufactured goods, said to be the ball point pens. Thereafter, the Tribunal considered the claim of the assessee with reference to the terms of the G. O. Ms. No. 130, Revenue, dated 14-2-1989, which provides exemption in respect of the educational items, which are enumerated therein. Thereafter the Tribunal having found that what was manufactured by the assessee was only ball point pen holders and not ball point pens, negatived the claim, recording its finding as under:-"the plain reading of the G. O. very clearly shows that the exemption is to ball point pens as they are known in the market. Ball point pen holders without refills cannot be called as ball point pens by any stretch of imagination. Ball point pen holders without refills cannot be called as ball point pens by any stretch of imagination. Hence, there ball point pen holders without refills are not attracted by the terms of the aforesaid G. O. it is very clear that ball point pen is a composite item consisting of pen holder and also refill, in this case the essential part like refill is missing, hence we are unable to appreciate the argument of A. P. , without refill the ball point pen holder cannot be considered as ball point pen. " ( 8 ) BEFORE us the learned Counsel for the dealer reiterated its contentions with reference to the non-supply of the material that was collected by the departmental officers in the course of their enquiries as to the genuineness of the customers to whom the petitioner/dealer has claimed to have sold its manufactured goods viz. , ball point pens. In the absence of supply of such material, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Machilipatnam Consumer co-operative Society (supra ). No doubt, if the assessment was purely based on the material collected by the Department behind the dealer/assessee, this Court would have set aside the impugned order. But a perusal of the impugned order shows that the assessment was considered on merits and the claim was in fact denied on the merits of the matter and not relying on such material collected by the department. In fact, the Tribunal recorded the following finding in favour of the assessee, as to the claim of the assessee relating to the sales affected to its customers at Mumbai:-"the argument of the Assessing Officer that the appellant has not furnished copies of the reports of sales tax authorities at mumbai to support the contention that they are not fictitious dealers does not appear to be correct as the recorded evidence at the check post clearly establishes the movement of granules from Bombay to Hyderabad and ball point pens from Hyderabad to Mumbai. "in the light of the above-said finding recorded by the Tribunal, we do not think that there is any adverse finding, based on the material collected behind the assessee/dealer. ( 9 ) COMING to the merits of the matter, the assessee claimed exemption in terms of g. O. Ms. "in the light of the above-said finding recorded by the Tribunal, we do not think that there is any adverse finding, based on the material collected behind the assessee/dealer. ( 9 ) COMING to the merits of the matter, the assessee claimed exemption in terms of g. O. Ms. No. 130, Revenue, dated 14-2-1989. The said G. O. , reads as under:"in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Andhra pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Andhra Pradesh Act VI of 1957), the governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby exempts from the tax payable under the said Act the sales or purchases by dealers in respect of the following goods with effect from the 15th February, 1989. (i) Waste paper excluding old newspapers or newspaper waste; (ii) All palm fibre products; (iii) Educational items such as - Bio-visual products like rexine charts, maps and globes - Pencils, pens and "ball point pens", Dusters, Erasers instrument boxes; (iv) Live-stock. " ( 10 ) A reading of the above G. O. , shows that the Government has granted exemption of exercising its powers under sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act in respect of educational items such as. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "ball point pens". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . apart from other items mentioned therein. Here we are concerned with the above item i. e. , "ball point pens". By the G. O. , what was exempted by the Government is only the sale or purchase of the ball point pens by the dealers. If what was manufactured by the assessee are ball point pens, the assessee is certainly entitled for exemption. But the finding recorded by the appellate Tribunal is that what was manufactured by the assessee was only ball point pen holders i. e. , without refills. Therefore, the Tribunal recorded that the ball point pen holders without refills could not be considered as ball point pens. The said finding is also supported by the statement of one of the director of the assessee-dealer, who has stated that they have not purchased or manufactured refills. Therefore, the Tribunal recorded that the ball point pen holders without refills could not be considered as ball point pens. The said finding is also supported by the statement of one of the director of the assessee-dealer, who has stated that they have not purchased or manufactured refills. In the light of the said statement, what was manufactured by the assessee dealer at the most is only ball point pen holders, which could not be considered as ball point pens. ( 11 ) IN the light of the said finding recorded by the Tribunal with which we are in agreement, we do not find that there is any error or irregularity in the order of the appellate Tribunal. ( 12 ) JUST before delivery of the above judgment, a representation was made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the issue in dispute is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala v. V. Padmanabhan (in Civil Appeal nos. 4606-4607 of 1998, dated 3-2-2000), which was not brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing of the above tax revision case. Therefore, the matter was posted for being mentioned. ( 13 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the above decision of the Supreme Court even the ball point pen holders (covers) should be treated as ball point pens, so as to avail the benefit of exemption, as provided in G. O. Ms. No. 130, dated 14-2-1989 and therefore the tax revision case is liable to be allowed. The above judgment, rendered by the apex Court arises, out of the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of v. Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala, 112 stc 472. In that case the dispute was whether the refill falls within the Entry- 135 of the First Schedule appended to the kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The entry-135 reads:-"135. Pens, pencils and fountain pens. " according to the assessee in that case, the refill manufactured by the assessee would fall under the above-said Entry. This contention was considered and the Sales tax Appellate Tribunal recorded its finding negativing the claim as under: "on a careful analysis of the fact we find that the Entry 135 takes in its purview only pens, pencils and fountain pens. This contention was considered and the Sales tax Appellate Tribunal recorded its finding negativing the claim as under: "on a careful analysis of the fact we find that the Entry 135 takes in its purview only pens, pencils and fountain pens. The Entry is found to be specific, categoric and is rendered exhaustive and exclusive. Refill is only a part of a ball pen which by itself cannot be regarded as a pen as pen is constituted by different parts and its identity is retained, any one of its part, however, pivotal it may be, when separated cannot be treated as that commodity as the parts loose the identity and use of the parent commodity. Hence refill is only a part of a bell pen and hence it cannot be called a pen. Moreover refill is not designed for writing and the same is designed only as a part of pen. In common parlance and commercial parlance also pen and refill are entirely different commodities with distinct and independent identities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "after considering the said finding of the tribunal, the Kerala High Court, however, disagreed with the said finding of the tribunal and felt that refill is the main component of the ball pen and not the body. Without refill writing is not possible. Therefore reversed the view of the Tribunal. The relevant portion of the order of the high Court is as under:-"a ball pen is made of two components, viz. , the refill and the cover or the body into which the refill is put. As already pointed out, the cover of the refill cannot be used for writing, whereas the refill alone is used for writing. One can write with the refill only. The body of the refill is not an aid to writing for which the refill is used. But that can only facilitate handling of the refill or that can merely make the refill more attractive in appearance. Refill being the only major component of the ball pen, we are of the view that the refill is not an ancillary of the ball pen but a major component of it and hence that can be regarded as a ball pen by itself. Refill being the only major component of the ball pen, we are of the view that the refill is not an ancillary of the ball pen but a major component of it and hence that can be regarded as a ball pen by itself. In common parlance or in commercial sense also the body of the ball pen cannot be regarded as pen, but a refill which can be used for writing as such, can be treated as pen. What can write and which can be used for writing is ordinarily a pen, but the body of the ball pen which is not an aid to writing device but merely an embellishment, can in no case be treated as a pen. So from a layman point of view also, it is the refill and not the body which can be treated as pen. " ( 14 ) BY recording the above finding, the Kerala High Court reversed the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The said judgment of the Kerala High Court was the subject-matter of the Civil Appeals referred to earlier. The Apex Court disagreed with the finding recorded by the High Court and reversed the said finding and restored the finding of the appellate Tribunal. The relevant part of the judgment of the Apex court is as under:-"we must note immediately that there is no evidence on the record before us as to how a refill is regarded by the public or in commercial parlance, but we have used ball point pens for long enough to be able to give an authoritative opinion. As we see it, the ball point refill is the substitute for the ink that is filled from time to time in a fountain pen and it provides the ball or nib thereof. While the refill can write, it is not intended to be used, and cannot conveniently be used, for that purpose without being first inserted in the ball point pen. We do not think, therefore, that the High Court was right in overturning the view taken by the tribunal that the refill fell outside the scope of the said Entry. " ( 15 ) FROM the above it is clear that what constitute the ball point pen is a refill with a cover (ball point pen holder) but not either of the above parts individually. " ( 15 ) FROM the above it is clear that what constitute the ball point pen is a refill with a cover (ball point pen holder) but not either of the above parts individually. Therefore, the view, which we have already expressed, does not require any modification. ( 16 ) UNDER the above circumstances, we affirm the order of Sales Tax Appellate tribunal and the tax revision case is accordingly dismissed. No costs.