JUDGMENT :- CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. 1. Following are the substantial questions of law raised by the assessee for the assessment year 1981-1982. "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal ought to have held that the petitioners are entitled to deduction under Rule 6(c) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules in respect of freight and delivery charges since the charges were charged for and collected separately in the invoices without including in the price of the goods sold? 2. Whether, on the facts of the case and in law, the Tribunal ought to have held that the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the television sets were sold across the counter was unjustified since the appellate authority had no power to make out a new case against the petitioners when it was not the case of the department that television sets were sold across the counter for rejecting the claim for deduction with regard to freight and delivery charges? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the contentions raised at the time of hearing that during the relevant year, television sets could not be sold across the counter, since the television sets will work only with a help of an antenna which requires to be installed at the top of the residence of the buyer and hence ought to have held that the petitioners are entitled to deduction under Rule 6(c) of the TNGST Rules." 2. The petitioner is a dealer in television sets. During the assessment year 1981-1982, television sets were assessable under Entry 5 of the First Schedule at 15 %. Under a Notification in G.O.P.No.306(c), dated 5.10.1976, the government reduced the rate of tax to 10% as against 15% leviable on the sale of television sets. Thus, while Entry 5 deals with television sets and accessories of various other items, the Notification granting reduction in the rate of tax was restricted to the sale of television sets alone, thus accessories were not considered for reduced rate of tax. 3. The Assessing Officer rejected the plea of the assessee claiming the reduced rate of tax, in respect of sale of accessory and charged 15% tax as provided for under Entry 5 of the I Schedule. 3. The Assessing Officer rejected the plea of the assessee claiming the reduced rate of tax, in respect of sale of accessory and charged 15% tax as provided for under Entry 5 of the I Schedule. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee went on appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and ultimately, before the Tribunal, which confirmed the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Hence, the present revision by the assessee. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the only question that arises out of the order of the Tribunal relates to the reduction of tax to be applied to the accessories of television sets. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on decision of this Court reported in the case of Spheroidel Castings LTd Vs. The State of Tamilnadu (1977 Volume 40 STC 596) and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dewan Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. (1996 Volume 102 STC 67), to contend that even though the Notification made no mention about the accessories, the same deserves to be treated on par with the sale of the television sets, to attract the reduced rate of tax. 5. A reading of the judgment of this Court in the case of Spheroidel Castings LTd Vs. The State of Tamilnadu (1977 Volume 40 STC 596) shows that it relates to a Notification granting exemption in respect of the tax payable by a dealer on the sales of agricultural implements. The assessee therein claimed exemption on the castings, which are used as parts of mould board plough, as agricultural implements. This Court accepted the stand of the assessee and pointed out that the wording “implements” means tools or instruments and parts of tools and parts of instruments would also be implements. Thus, an implement cannot be taken as meaning only the whole piece. This Court further referred to the clarification from the Commissioner that what is applicable to the main agricultural implements would apply to the parts also. Thus, in the context of the meaning given to agricultural implements, as well as the Board's clarification, this Court directed that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the notification granting exemption on the sale of agricultural implements. 6. As far as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dewan Enterprises Vs. Thus, in the context of the meaning given to agricultural implements, as well as the Board's clarification, this Court directed that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the notification granting exemption on the sale of agricultural implements. 6. As far as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dewan Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. (1996 Volume 102 STC 67), the assessee therein claimed that the cycle rim was to be taxed as declared goods. In considering whether the cycle rim is a part of the wheel qualified for taxation at 4%, the Apex Court pointed out that without a rim, the other parts cannot be regarded as a wheel. Thus, the Entry has to be read as a whole and when rim is admittedly a part of the wheel set, it falls under the said Entry, thus attracting rate of tax at 4%. 7. The judgments referred to above relied on by the assessee would not be of any assistance to the assessee in the context of the wordings in the Entry and the notification. Admittedly, Entry V of the First Schedule covers many items, one of which is the television set. The said Entry as it stood then reads as follows: “Wireless reception and transmission instruments and apparatus, television sets, radios and radio gramophones, electrical valves, accumulators, amplifiers and loud-speakers and accessories thereof.” Thus, when the Notification granting the reduced rate of tax from 15% to 10% was made in exercise of the powers under Section 17 of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Government though it fit to restrict the same to the sale of television sets alone. Thus, when the Notification does not cover the accessories specifically, going by the decisions of the Apex Court as what accessory would mean, we do not think that the assessee could justify its claim for reduced rate of tax as considered in the Notification to cover the case of sale of accessories too. 8. In the case of Mehra Bros. Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Madras (1991 Volume 80 STC 233), the Apex Court pointed that an accessory is an item which aids in the performance of the main item. 9. 8. In the case of Mehra Bros. Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Madras (1991 Volume 80 STC 233), the Apex Court pointed that an accessory is an item which aids in the performance of the main item. 9. In the light of the pronouncement of the Apex Court and having regard to the specific reference in the Notification restricting the reduced rate of tax to sale of television sets alone, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The Tax Case appeal is dismissed. No costs.