YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard Shri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel.
(2.) The only issue which arises for consideration is whether the commodity being sold by the assessee was liable to exemption under the notification dated 31 January 1985.
(3.) The revisionist asserts that it was engaged in the facture and sale of 'kachri'. Admittedly this article was being sold in a state where it was ready to be consumed. The assessee is stated to have approached the Authority for Advance Rulings claiming exemption under the aforementioned notification. The authority took the view that the article factured by the revisionist would not be covered under the exemption notification. The decision of the Authority has been upheld by the Tribunal in appeal.;