Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS revision has been filed by the Commissioner, Trade Tax, against the judgment and order dated September 24, 2001 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in Appeal No. 6 of 2001 preferred by M/s. Majestic Farm House (P) Ltd. against the order dated November 6, 2000 passed by the Divisional Level Committee, Bareilly Division, Bareilly, whereby the application for exemption was rejected. In short, the facts are that the Majestic Farm House (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, "the company" for the sake of brevity) is a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, having its registered office at Ahmedabad. The unit is engaged in manufacture and production of ice cream of different varieties. The company is registered under the U.P. trade tax as well as Central sales tax. The company is established a new unit, which started production on January 24, 1997 and made the first sale on February 8, 1997. The unit filed an application in the requisite format for grant of exemption under Section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 on July 15, 1997. It is relevant to point out that the company entered into an agreement on January 15, 1997 and January 20, 1997 with one Vadilal International Limited for use of their brand "VADILAL" for the sale of the products of the company.
(3.) IT is said that application for grant of exemption under Section 4A of the Act remained pending for more than three years and the same was rejected by an order dated November 6, 2000 passed by the Divisional Level Committee. The Divisional Level Committee came to the conclusion that the unit of the opposite -party is an extension to the existing unit. It further considered the fact that new unit established by the opposite -party -company was subsequently taken over by Vadilal Industries Ltd., on September 22, 1997. In appeal, the Tribunal while setting aside the order passed by the Divisional Level Committee held that undue weightage to the SIB Survey Report has been given ignoring the report dated July 30, 1999 prepared by Sri R.B. Yadav, Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Bareilly. The Divisional Level Committee erred in not considering the fact that both the units were separate and were not situated in one premises. They were also manufacturing different varieties of ice -cream with different code numbers.;