THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO T.R.C.NO.206 OF 1998 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) This revision is at the instance of the Revenue aggrieved by the order dated 12.06.1998 in T.A.No.638 of 1997 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri G.Vivekanand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. In brief, the facts are that the relevant assessment year in this revision case is 1991-92 and the question is in regard to levy of tax and its extent apart from the item under which it is covered. Initially, the assessment authority imposed 2% tax on duplicating machines as concession rate. However, on further appeal, the same was held that under Item No.12 it is liable for tax at 10% apart from surcharge. That apart, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the same, which falls within the mischief of electronic items. Apart from the reason that the said finding is on fact, the question also squarely stands covered by the decision reported in State of A.P. v. Concap Capacitors[1], wherein it was held that Xerox machines fall within the mischief of electronic goods. It also falls under Item Nos.9.42 and 9.43 in the list of electronic goods prepared by the Electronic Commission Memo No.23718/CT-II.2/89 dated 01.06.1989. In the aforesaid circumstances, nothing remains to be considered since the question is squarely covered. Hence, we do not find any merits in the revision case. Accordingly, the Tax Revision Case is dismissed. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ________________ (R.KANTHA RAO, J) 12th April 2010 RRB [1] (2007) 8 SCC 658