OM PRAKASH, J. - (1.) These are the three revisions by the Revenue. Two revisions relating to the assessment year 1974-75 are under both the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the third revision relating to the assessment year 1973-74 is only under the U. P. Sales Tax Act against a consolidated order of the Tribunal dated 13th November, 1984. In all the revisions the principal question is common and the only distinguishing feature in the revision relating to the assessment year 1974-75 filed under the U. P. Sales Tax Act is that one more plea has been raised, that the Tribunal decided the appeal without disposing of grounds Nos. 3 and 5, having been raised in the memo of appeal. So all the three revisions are disposed of together by a combined order. As none appeared for the opposite party, only learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue was heard on the last date as well as today. The main controversy in these revisions is whether the manhole covers can be said to be the cast iron casting and if that is so whether they are covered by the entry as described in sub-section (iv), clause (i), of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act, 1956" ). This entry runs as follows : " Pig iron and cast iron including ingot moulds, bottom plates, iron scrap, cast iron scrap, runner scrap and iron skull scrap;" Section 14 enumerates the goods of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce which are liable to tax at a lower rate of 4 per cent. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of manholes. The contention of the assessee is that the manholes are cast iron casting, which is included in the item "cast iron", occurring in sub-section (iv), clause (i), of section 14 of the Act, 1956 and, therefore, tax payable on manhole covers is only at the rate of 4 per cent. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee relying on letter No. 24/14/76-ST dated 28th February, 1977, issued by the Government of India, which was accepted by the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P. , vide Circular No. 38 of 1984 dated 30th July, 1984. From the aforesaid letter of the Government of India, which is reproduced in the circular dated 30th July, 1984, it is clear that the cast iron casting is covered under the term "cast iron". The argument of the learned Standing Counsel is that cast iron casting cannot be said to be covered by the term "cast iron", occurring in sub-section (iv), clause (i), of section 14 of the Act, 1956. In my opinion, this argument is not open to the learned Standing Counsel after the letter dated 28th February, 1977 (supra) issued by the Government of India has been accepted by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. , vide its Circular No. 38 of 1984 dated 30th July, 1984. Then it was argued that after casting the manhole covers from the cast iron, they are subjected to further processing and, therefore, a new commodity comes into being after processing. I do not agree with this submission either. Assuming that the manhole covers are subjected to further processing, if any, even then, the manhole covers continue to retain the same character and they do not cease to be cast iron casting. It is argued that after being casted, manhole covers are very rough, uneven and are prone to being rusted. The argument is that after casting they are grinded and are smoothened and to make them rust-proof they are painted/polished. Even if this processing is carried out, the manhole covers will yet continue to retain the same character and they will be in the nature of cast iron casting. For the reasons, I hold that the Tribunal rightly held the manhole covers as being the cast iron casting, which is included in the term "cast iron", occurring in sub-section (iv), clause (i), of section 14 of the Act, 1956. It takes me to the additional plea raised in the revision filed for the assessment year 1974-75 under the U. P. Sales Tax Act. The department took up the plea that the Tribunal was wrong in deciding the appeal without disposing of grounds Nos. 3 and 5, having been raised in the memo of appeal filed before the Tribunal. These grounds having not been disposed of by the Tribunal require consideration. In the result, the revisions filed for the assessment year 1973-74 under the U. P. Sales Tax Act and the revision filed under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1974-75 are dismissed, and the revision pertaining to the assessment year 1974-75 under the U. P. Sales Tax Act is allowed and the case is sent back on a limited point to the Tribunal with a direction that it will redecide the case after disposing of the grounds Nos. 3 and 5, as raised in the memo of appeal before the Tribunal. No order as to costs. .;