Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 23rd September. 2004.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the applicant had established a new unit for the manufacturing of C.I. Casting in the year, 1999. Production was started on 18.08.1999 and the first sale was made on 06.09.1999. According to the applicant, application under Section 4-A of the Act for the exemption on the turnover of the manufactured goods was filed in the office of General Manager. District Industries Center, Agra which was duly acknowledged by the staff of the office on 8th February, 2000. Filing of the application on 8th February, 2000 is in dispute. According to the Divisional Level Committee, application was filed on 04.12.2000. Said application was processed and eligibility certificate was issued treating the applicant unit as a new unit and exemption has been granted as contemplated under the notification. Exemption was however, granted with effect from 04.12.2000 as against the claim of the applicant from 06.09.1999. the date of first sale. According to the applicant application was filed on 08th February, 2000 within six months from the date of first sale and. therefore, the application was within time and the exemption should be allowed from 06.09.1999. Against the said order, applicant filed a review application under Rule 25 (3)(c) of the Rules. Review application was rejected by the Divisional Level Committee vide order dated 05.10.2002. Against the said order applicant filed appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal. Trade Tax Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded back the matter to the Divisional Level Committee with certain directions to make the enquiry. The Divisional Level Committee has not accepted the claim of the applicant and vide order dated 26th June, 2003 again rejected the review application. Applicant filed appeal against the order dated 23rd June. 2004 before the Tribunal. Tribunal vide assessment order dated 23rd September, 2004 rejected the appeal.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties;