- (1.) THESE two revisions have been preferred at the instance of Commis sioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow against common order passed by the Trade Tax Tri bunal, Kanpur in two connected second ap peals No.665 of 2000 and 666 of 2005 relat ing to the assessment years 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 whereby and whereunder it has allowed the appeals preferred by the dealer and set aside the assessment order creating demand for trade tax as also the first appel late order remanding the matter to the Assess ing Authority with certain directions to record findings on the issues mentioned in the ap pellate order.
(2.) BOTH these revisions relate to the same assesses and the arguments by learned coun sel were advanced in respect to the revision No.2077 of 2005 relating to the assessment year 1997-1998 with the understanding that identical controversy is involved in the com panion revision. By way of clarification, it may be added that the revision No.2077 of 2005 arises out of assessment proceedings while the connected revision No.2074 of 2005 arises out of reassessment proceedings initi ated under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act with respect to the assessment year 1996-1997, which was the first year of the busi ness of dealer opposite party. The facts of the case may be noticed in brief. The dealer opposite party claims that it is an institution certified by the U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board. It carries on the business of manufacture and sale of mentha crystals. The mentha crystals were manufac tured out of mentha oil purchased by it. The dealer claimed exemption on the sale of mentha crystals so sold and manufactured out of mentha oil purchased by it under notifica tion No.2454 dated 5.10.1995 issued under section 4 (c) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (here inafter referred to as the Act). The case of the dealer is that its product i.e. mentha crystals is exempt from payment of trade tax under Entry No.35, in particular of the said notifi cation. The said plea did not find favour with the Assessing Authority. The assessment or der was carried in appeal before the first ap pellate authority who was of the opinion that certain probing is required in the matter. Con sequently, it set aside the assessment order and restored the matter to the file of the As sessing Officer to reframe the assessment or der after ascertaining the facts on certain is sues mentioned in the appellate order. Still aggrieved, the dealer further challenged the said order by way of second appeals before the tribunal who by the order under revision set aside the appellate order and the assess ment order was well and held that in view of the notification No.2454 dated 5th of Octo ber, 1995, the product of the dealer is not exi gible to any tax under the Act. In the memo of revision the following questions of law have been framed: (i) "Whether the manufacturing of mentha crystals out of mentha oil purchased by the dealer is covered under entry No.34 of the notification No.2454 dated 5-10-1995? (ii) Whether the dealer is liable to exemp tion under the above notification even if he himself has not collected and processed the forest plants?"
(3.) THE contention of the learned standing counsel is that the dealer is not entitled to get the benefit of the aforesaid notification for the reasons more than one. On its own show ing, the dealer has purchased the mentha oil and after processing the same manufactured mentha crystals. THE mentha crystals do not fall under the Entry No.34 of the said notifi cation which reads "collection and process ing of forest plants for medicinal purposes". Admittedly, the dealer has not collected the mentha herbs rather it purchased it from the seller. THE benefit of the said entry can be availed of only by such dealers who collects mentha herb and process thereafter for me dicinal processes. THE view taken by the tri bunal that use of word 'and' in between the words "collection" and "processing" should be read as disjunctively, is not legally ten able and it should be read conjointly, submits the learned standing counsel. Elaborating the argument, it was submitted that there being no ambiguity in the notification, the notifica tion being in the nature of an exemption noti fication it should be read and understood on its plain reading without resorting any exter nal aid. Shri S.D. Singh, learned counsel for the dealer, on the other hand, submits that the very purpose and object of issuing notifica tion is to grant exemption to such village industries which are registered with Khadi and Village Industries Board Adhiniyam, 1956. Unit of the dealer has been registered as vil lage industry with the U.P. Khadi and Gramodyog Board for manufacture of mentha crystals and de-mentha oil out of Jari Booti (herbs). Taking an analogy of a circular is sued by the Commissioner of Trade Tax in respect of footwear dated 29th September, 2000, which has been relied upon by the tri bunal in the impugned order holding that the "footwear" and "chappals" are the part of leather industries and therefore, mentha crys tals are exempt under the said notification. THE similar interpretation and treatment is required to be given to mentha crystals also, submits the learned counsel for the -dealer. Considered the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The relevant notification for our purposes is the notification No.2454 dated 5th October, 1995 which has been issued in ex ercise of powers given under clause (c) of sec tion 4 of the Act. By this notification the ear lier notification No.7037 dated 31st of Janu ary, 1995 has been amended. The present no tification provides for exemption of sale by institutions in Uttar Pradesh by All India Khadi and Village Industries Commission or the Uttar Pradesh Khadi and Village Indus tries Board, of products of village industries specified therein.;