JUDGMENT Shekhar B. Saraf, J. These revision petitions, raising common question of law, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. These revision petitions have been admitted by coordinate Bench on the following question of law:- "Whether the Tribunal being the last fact finding authority ought to have returned a clear finding with respect to charges incurred by the importer till the stage of bringing the goods in the local area and charges incurred inside the local area after its entry; before including such charges in the value of goods defined under section 2(h) Entry Tax Act, 2007?" 2. I have heard Mr. Suyash Agarwal, counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionists and Mr. B.K. Pandey, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 3. Mr. Agarwal has indicated that the definition of "value of goods" as per the Uttar Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was amended retrospectively with effect from November 1, 1999. He has placed reliance on definition of "value of goods" as per Section 2(h) of the Act. The definition reads as under:- "2. Definitions. - (1) In this Act, - (h) "value of goods" means the value of any goods as ascertained from original purchase invoice or bill and includes value of packing material, packing and forwarding charges, insurance charges, amounts representing excise duty, countervailing duty, custom duty and other like duties, amount of any fee or tax charged, transport charges, freight charges and any other charges relating to purchase and transportation of such goods into the local area in which goods are being brought or received for consumption, use or sale therein;" 4. In light of the above definition, Mr. Agarwal submits that the value of goods has to be determined till the point the goods enter into the local area only, and any other subsequent charges that are incurred, are not to be added to the value of goods. 5. With regard to the issue of demurrage, and the bank charges, the Tribunal in subsequent years has accepted the contention of the revisionists and held in their favour. In light of the same, the benefit is required to be given for the assessment year in question. 6. 5. With regard to the issue of demurrage, and the bank charges, the Tribunal in subsequent years has accepted the contention of the revisionists and held in their favour. In light of the same, the benefit is required to be given for the assessment year in question. 6. With regard to the unloading cost and other charges, the Tribunal has not come to any finding whether the same included unloading prior to entry of the goods into the local area or subsequent to entry into the local area. Accordingly, these issues are required to be remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. 7. The question of law is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 8. The revision petitions are accordingly disposed of with the directions as made above.