and others (2002) Vol.127 STC 339) to contend that there cannot be any distinction between imported and indigenous goods. That was a case where this Court had dealt with the imported sugar. The Division Bench considered the word "imported" found in item (viii) of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act does not result in the declaration with regard to sugar being confined only to sugar which is produced domestically. The Court had taken note of the fact that sugar falling within the scope of the sub-headings of the Central Excise Tariff Act and referred to in item (viii) of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act would be declared goods, irrespective of the place of their manufacture. The question before the Division Bench was when once the goods are treated as declared goods, whether there could be a further distinction as to the indigenous or imported goods for the purpose of levy of tax. The criteria of distinction for levying higher rate of tax is whether the goods imported from the other country lose its identity as foreign goods or not. In the given case, the goods are television sets, audio systems, handy cameras, handsets of cellular phones, cars, medium density fibre boards, etc., and even after their import, they did not lose their respective identity. However, in the case of sugar, even after the sugar is imported, it is
