OM PRAKASH, J. - (1.) This is a revision for the assessment year 1986-87 against the Tribunal's order dated 30th January, 1989. The assessee, a manufacturer and dealer in tractors, claimed exemption on the basis of the notification dated 1st February, 1985. By this notification, exemption was given in regard to sales of tractors, sold on the price prevailing on 31st December, 1984. This notification was rescinded by the notification dated 12th September, 1986, with effect from 15th September, 1986. The assessee claimed that it had sold the tractors during the period, 20th May, 1986 to 15th September, 1986 at the price obtaining on 31st December, 1984 and claimed exemption. The exemption was denied to the assessee while making provisional assessment on the ground that the assessee under a colourable device reduced the price of the tractor to take advantage of the Notification dated 1st February, 1985. The assessing officer also stated in his order that to take benefit of the Notification dated 1st February, 1985, the assessee increased the price of the accessories to offset the reduction in the price of the tractors. Also it was observed by the assessing officer that as compared to the preceding period, the price of the tractor could not have gone down during the relevant period, i. e. , from 20th May, 1986 to 15th September, 1986. His reasoning was that by passage of time, the prices of the material had gone up and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the manufacturing cost of the tractor could go down. This is how the exemption claimed by the assessee for the aforesaid period was refused. The appellate authority agreed with the assessing officer. The Tribunal in second appeal accepted the case of the assessee and allowed the appeal giving the benefit of exemption claimed by the assessee on the strength of the Notification dated 1st February, 1985. Before me learned counsel for Revenue reiterated that it is just not possible that the manufacturing cost of the tractor would have gone down during the period 20th May, 1986 to 15th September, 1986, while the selling price of the tractors in the preceding period from January, 1986 to May, 1986 was Rs. 57,135 as against the selling price of Rs. 53,230 during the period in question. Also, he argued that the price of the tractors was reduced with a view to claiming exemption allowed under the Notification dated 1st February, 1985. I am not, at all, convinced with the submissions of the Revenue. No dealer can be forced to charge higher price and to make profit always. Normally no dealer will sell the goods at a lesser price incurring huge loss. But in this case, there is no evidence on behalf of the Revenue that in fact, the tractors were sold at a higher price and the invoices were given of a lesser price. Rather, the assessing officer himself concluded that the price of accessories was increased with a view to offsetting the reduction in the tractor's price. The case of the assessee is that when the price was raised in the period from January, 1986 to May, 1986, the sales of the tractors had drastically gone down and, therefore, to augment the sales, the selling price of the tractors was again reduced. Be that as it may, the case of the assessee cannot be rejected, so long as there is nothing on record to show that the tractors were not sold at the price for which the invoices were given. The assessing authority did not examine any buyer of the tractor to establish that in fact, more price had been paid by him, but the invoice was given of a lesser amount. The Revenue vehemently argued that the manufacturing cost of the tractor must have gone up and, therefore, there is no question of selling the tractors at a lesser price during the months of May to September, 1986. This argument has to be rejected outright, because the manufacturing cost of the tractor might go up, but the seller is free to sell his commodity at any price, he likes. The case of the assessing officer is that the real price of the tractor was not shown but under a well-set design, the price of tractor was reduced to take advantage of the notification allowing exemption and deficiency was made good by selling the accessories at a higher price. Even if it were true, exemption cannot be lawfully denied to the assessee. The Revenue would have succeeded only if some investigation had been made to establish that the tractors had, in fact, been sold at a higher price, but the invoices were deliberately issued at a lower amount with a view to defrauding the Revenue and for taking advantage of the Notification dated 1st February, 1985. Therefore, I do not see any infirmity in the Tribunal's order dated 30th January, 1989, which must be upheld. However, if a different position emerges at the stage of final assessment, then the assessing authority will be at liberty to make assessment according to law. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Revision petition dismissed. .;