M. KATJU, J. - (1.) This revision has been filed against the impugned order of the Sales Tax Tribunal dated January 30, 1992, annexure 5 to the revision. I have heard Shri Bharatji Agarwal and learned counsel for the respondent. There are two disputes in this case, one is regarding the addition of the freight charges and the other regarding the rent on container. In my opinion rent on container cannot be included in the sale price as there is no sale of the container. Hence the amount of Rs. 4,30,456. 15 which has been shown as rent for bottle is to be deleted from the turnover of the year. With regard to the freight, a perusal of page 5 of the Tribunal order shows that the assessee has not been charging freight separately on each consignment but has charged equalised freight which is only a notional freight. In my opinion if the practice is to charge equalised freight such freight must be deducted if it has a co-relation to the average actual freight. In other words, the total freight of the entire consignments of the year is to be divided by the number of consignments and this average amount should be treated to be the equalised freight. If, however, there is a great discrepancy between such actual average freight and the equalised freight which the assessee is charging then the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction for more than the actual average freight. In my opinion the actual average freight is liable to be deleted from the turnover of the assessee. To work out this actual average freight the matter needs to be remanded to the Tribunal to consider this aspect. Hence while upholding the finding in other issues, I set aside the addition of the rent of the bottles from the turnover, and I remand the matter for a fresh decision regarding the freight in the light of the observation made above. The impugned order to this extent is set aside. The Tribunal will decide the case on this point within three months of production of certified copy of this order. Petitioner partly allowed. .;