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 15.07.2000.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the applicant established a new unit for the manufacturing of cement. Applicant was registered both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as Central Sales Tax Act under the Factories Act and also registered with the Director of Small Scale Industries. First sale was made on 20.09.1995. Applicant moved an application under section 4 -A of the Act for the exemption under the notification No. TT -II -780/XI -9(226)/94 -U.P. Act -15/48 -Order -95, dated 31.03.1995 and TT -781/XI -9(226)/94 -Act -74/56 -Order -95, dated 31.03.1995 for the period of eight years on 175% of the capital investment. The exemption was denied by the Divisional Level Committee on the ground that as per the requirement of Section 4(1) under the Cement Control Order, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'Control Order') the manufacturer of the cement was required to obtain licence for use of standard mark and shall not produce the cement till it obtains the standard mark. It appears that the applicant applied for ISI Mark with the Bureau on 27.01.1997. Since the licence for the use of standard mark from the Bureau could not obtained on the date of the first sale, the exemption under section 4 -A of the Act was denied. Being aggrieved by the order of Divisional Level Committee applicant filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal in part. Tribunal held that the applicant is entitled for the exemption from the date of the application, moved for obtaining the licence for the use of standard mark with the Bureau and directed the Divisional Level Committee to grant the eligibility certificate from such date. Being aggrieved by the order, present revision has been filed. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Misra, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no requirement under Section 4 -A of the Act and the notification issued thereunder as a condition precedent for grant of exemption to obtain the licence for use of standard mark with the Bureau and, therefore, in the absence of any licence as required under the Control Order the exemption can not be denied. He submitted that under the notification if a unit is registered permanently or otherwise under any provisions of the Act, such unit is eligible for the exemption under Section 4 -A of the Act. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of CD. Lamps and Tube Industries, Moradabad and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 1993 UPTC, 875, in which it has been held that under Section 4 -A of the Act there is no requirement for obtaining the ISI mark. He further relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Aakash Cement Pvt. Ltd. Aligarh v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, reported in 2000 UPTC, 298. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that cement is such product which can not be sold unless it bears ISI mark obtained form the Bureau. He submitted that in case if manufacturing can not be allowed without obtaining the ISI mark, it will be against the public interest to allow exemption in the absence of ISI mark as required under Section 4(1) of the Control Order. Thus, the exemption has been rightly denied.;