TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (10) TMI 585
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tax Tribunal, being Appeal No. 120 of 1998 and has confirmed the order of the Commissioner, Trade Tax dated March 23, 1998 by which the eligibility certificate granted to the revisionist under section 4A(2) has been cancelled by the authority under the provisions of section 4A(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"). The revisionist is a public limited company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and had established a new unit at C-4, Industrial Area, Sikanderabad, District Bulandshahar for the manufacture of television sets. This unit was established by the revisionist in view of the incentive scheme announced by the State Government for the grant of exemption from the payment of tax under section 4A ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 4A(3) cancelling the eligibility certificate on the ground of misuse. The order dated March 23, 1998 has been placed on record by the revisionist as annexure 1 to the paper book. The order dated March 23, 1998 records two grounds for the cancellation of the eligibility certificate. The first ground recorded is that the manufacturer was not in the production of television sets at some times. The second finding recorded for misuse is that because the revisionist was importing television sets from outside, it cannot be said that he was a manufacturer. Learned counsel for the revisionist Shri Bharatji Agrawal has argued that this order of cancellation does not record anywhere that the revisionist was not in production continuously f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 21, 1989 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Commissioner under section 4A(3) and remanded the case to the Commissioner of Trade Tax for decision afresh after giving to the revisionist a proper opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, another order was passed on January 5, 1992 under section 4A(3) by which the eligibility certificate was cancelled. The revisionist again filed an appeal, which was allowed on August 21, 1995. Thereafter, another order was passed on March 23, 1998 under section 4A(3) cancelling the eligibility certificate on the ground of misuse. The order dated March 23, 1998 has been placed on record by the revisionist as annexure 1 to the paper book. The order dated March 23, 1998 records two grounds....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n certificate to the manufacturer, i.e., the revisionist did not preclude it from indulging any trading activity and, therefore, the mere fact that the revisionist had imported T.V. sets from outside, would not result in the misuse of the eligibility certificate unless there was a clear allegation that the exemption had been availed by the revisionist on the import of these television sets. In reply to the argument of learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Standing Counsel Shri B.K. Pandey has argued that in fact, the revisionist was not engaged in the production of T. V. sets at all because the order of cancellation records that the production manager of the company Shri Ajit Kumar admitted that there was no production on August 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r a continuous period of six months, there was evidence before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the revisionist has misused the eligibility certificate by making imports of T.V. sets. In effect, learned counsel has argued that in so far as the first finding of the order of cancellation is concerned, there could be no dispute about it because even the Tribunal has accepted that the revisionist was in production and has not closed its production for a continuous period of six months. On the second finding, learned counsel has argued that mere import of T.V. sets did not mean that the revisionist was indulging in misuse of its eligibility certificate because there is no allegation, whatsoever, either in the order of cancellati....