SUNEET KUMAR,J. - (1.) The revisionist is assailing the order dated 14 August 2002, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, under Section 4A(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act ('the Act'), in Appeal No. 55 of 2002, whereby, the eligibility certificate granted under Section 4-A of the Act to the revisionist has been cancelled.
(2.) The issue primarily is as to whether the unit established by the revisionist is a new unit or merely expansion/modification of the existing unit.
(3.) Briefly stated the facts are that the revisionist is a partnership firm registered under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, as well as, the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The revisionist established an industrial undertaking for manufacturing insecticides and pesticides. In 1993, a new unit was established in the same premises, where the old unit was existing for manufacturing of other pesticides for which the revisionist approached the U.P. Financial Corporation for loan towards plant and machinery. The first sale of the new product was made on 29 March 1993, hence, in accordance with the notification No. 1093 dated 27 July 1991, revisionist applied for exemption from payment of tax with effect from the date of first sale under Section 4-A of the Act. Upon recommendation of the Divisional Level Committee, the eligibility certificate was granted on 9 May 1995. Commissioner Trade Tax, thereafter, issued a notice under Section 4-A(3) of the Act, directing the revisionist to show cause as to why the eligibility certificate may not be cancelled. Upon revisionist filing objection to the show cause notice, the Commissioner Trade Tax cancelled the eligibility certificate on 5 February 1998. Aggrieved, revisionist preferred an appeal under Section 10 of the Act, which was allowed on 12 May 2000, remitting the matter to the Commissioner Trade Tax to decide afresh. Pursuant thereof, the Commissioner Trade Tax again cancelled the eligibility certificate vide order dated 26 April 2001. Aggrieved, revisionist preferred an appeal, which was allowed on 10 August 2001 and the matter was again remitted with a specific direction to return a finding as to whether the unit set up by the revisionist was a new unit or expansion of the old existing unit. Commissioner vide order dated 23 April 2002, upon considering the original application, application form XLVI, proceeding of the District Level Committee and Divisional Level Committee came to a conclusion that revisionist had applied for expansion of the unit and had not sought exemption for a new unit. Aggrieved by the order, revisionist preferred appeal, Trade Tax Tribunal by the impugned order has affirmed the order of the Commissioner passed under Section 4-A(3) of the Act.;