SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,J. - (1.) Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel for the revisionist.
(2.) This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 3.2.2018 in Second Appeal No. 190/2013 (Year 2007-08) passed by the Member Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench - 3, Kanpur. By the impugned order both the appeals being appeal no.190 of 2013 and 259 of 2015, filed by the department and the assessee respectively, have been dismissed and the order of the First Appellate Authority has been upheld.
(3.) Learned standing counsel submits that the optimum production capacity of the plant of the respondent-assessee was 5 M.T. while the assessee has disclosed average production of 2.5 M.T. per hour. Therefore, the Assessing Authority has lawfully and correctly fixed the average production of 3.5 M.T. But, the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal have committed a manifest error of law and facts in disapproving the production determined by the Assessing Authority.;