ORDER S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J. - The above appeals under section 53(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 assail the judgment of the M.P. Commercial Tax Appellate Board dated March 30, 2007 by which the claim of the appellant - company that the handset and the substituted SIM card issued by it to the subscribers are not exigible to commercial tax has been turned down. Though the appeals are for different years, since they have been disposed of by a common order, annexure A-8, passed by the Board, they are being disposed of by this common order. The learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that during the period pertaining to the assessment year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, the appellant had floated a scheme for rendering telecom service to the subscribers in which handsets were made available to the subscribers on non-returnable basis along with the SIM cards. The Department levied tax on the value of the handset and also the value of the SIM cards which substituted the original SIM cards on account of damage, etc., for which extra charge was made. It was this levy of commercial tax which was assailed by the appellant. The learned counsel submits that insofar as the supply of hand set to the subscribers was concerned, it was not the main business of the appellant who was liable to pay only service tax under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 with the result the appellant was not required to get itself registered as a "dealer" under the Commercial Tax Act, 1994 but on account of some misconception, application was made to the Department and a registration as "dealer" was obtained. The learned counsel has referred to the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras [1999] 114 STC 520 (SC) and the decision in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 145 STC 91 (SC); [2006] 3 VST 95 (SC). It is on the strength of the above authorities that the learned counsel contends that once the handset forms a negligible part of the service and is not a sale, the commercial tax could not have been claimed by the respondents on the said cellular handsets. It is on the strength of the above authorities that the learned counsel contends that once the handset forms a negligible part of the service and is not a sale, the commercial tax could not have been claimed by the respondents on the said cellular handsets. The Board, in considering the said contention, has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Anand Commercial Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer [1997] 107 STC 586. Apropos of the first contention of the learned counsel that supplying of the handset to the subscribers was only an ancillary activity and not the main activity, suffice would be to say that service rendered by the appellant - company would be meaningless unless the receivers are available with the subscribers. The fact that the company did not insist the subscribers to purchase a receiver from outside and use its SIM card and proposed to supply the receiver along with the SIM card clearly indicates the intention of the company to pass on to the customer the cellular phone as part of the deal which constituted sale. It cannot be denied that the cellular phone had a market value and it was supplied to the customer, apparently not free of charge but for charge which constituted part of the package. In Anand Commercial Agencies [1997] 107 STC 586 the apex court considered a situation where bottles were supplied free of charge on understanding that they would be returned to the "dealer" with a stipulation that the amount of advance deposited would stand forfeited if the bottles were not returned within the prescribed period. This amount was treated as forming part of sale price and charged appropriately to tax. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant however, deal with the matter in a different field. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2006] 145 STC 91 (SC); [2006] 3 VST 95 (SC) their Lordships, considering whether the SIM card was sold to the subscribers, were dealing with a situation where the SIM card not sold to the subscribers but forming part of the services rendered was held as not chargeable to sales tax. In that decision also it was clarified that if the parties contended that the SIM card would be a separate subject of sale, it would be open to the sales tax authorities to levy sales tax thereon. In that decision also it was clarified that if the parties contended that the SIM card would be a separate subject of sale, it would be open to the sales tax authorities to levy sales tax thereon. From the orders passed by the sales tax authorities we find that the authorities have been discerning enough between the SIM card supplied free of charge and the SIM card substituted on payment of charges. It is only the SIM card which is substituted on account of damage, etc., and for which extra charge is made that the authorities are charging commercial tax. However, the situation with regard to the supply of handset is entirely different from the one present before their Lordships and, therefore, we do not find that the contention of the appellant is substantiated by the ratio of the said decision. Reference has also been made to State of Tamil Nadu v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras [1999] 114 STC 520 (SC). The said case was dealing with the incidental transaction of unserviceable goods. The case of the appellant obviously is that it is not an unserviceable item which has been supplied to the subscriber but very much a handset which is an essential component for receiving the service. Under these circumstances, the decision in Board of Trustees [1999] 114 STC 520 (SC) also does not further the case of the appellant. In view of the above discussion, we do not find that these appeals give rise to any question of law, much less substantial, for a decision in the appeal under section 53(2) of the VAT Act. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed summarily.