YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) This revision calls in question an order of the Tribunal dated 5 December 2006 allowing in part an appeal preferred by the assessee in which the Tribunal has held that it was entitled to a exemption only to the extent of 150% of its fixed capital investment. The facts on which there is no much dispute are as follows.
(3.) The unit of the assessee underook an expansion drive during the period in question and sought exemption in terms of the provisions of Section 4-A of the 1948 Act. Its submission before the authorities was that it was a Small Scale Industry and was entitled to be granted exemption to the extent of 175% of its fixed capital investment. The District Level Committee which initially considered this prayer held that the assessee was entitled to exemption only to the extent of 150%. This decision formed the subject matter of Second Appeal No. 60 of 2005 which came to be allowed by the Tribunal on 5 October 2005. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal held that the assessee would be entitled to exemption to the extent of 175% of the additional fixed capital investment and consequently commanded the District Level Committee, Noida to amend the eligibility certificate. The observations of the Tribunal as they appear in the order dated 5 October 2005 read as follows: "From a perusal of aforesaid judgment it transpires that the appeals were allowed and the Trade Tax Exemption Committee Noida was directed to amend the eligibility certificate and to grant exemption upto 150% instead of 100%. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appeal has got force and must succeed. ORDER Appeal No. 60 of 2005 is allowed. Exemption to the tune of 175% of additional Fixed Capital Investment shall be granted. The D.L.C. Noida is directed to amend the Eligibility Certificate accordingly.";