TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 892
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated March 4, 2003, passed by the Divisional Level Committee. Briefly the facts of the case are that the revisionist set up the equipment and facilities for processing of edible oil seeds, namely, soyabean seed, mustard seed, sunflower seed, mahua seed, etc., for the manufacture of soyabean oil, mustard oil, sunflower, mahua oil and de-oiled extraction of soyabean, mustard, sunflower oil, mahua and started production from February 23, 1998. For grant of eligibility certificate under rule 25 of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948, the revisionist submitted an application in the prescribed form and also made some additional capital investment. The Divisional Level Committee by means of order dated October 16, 2000 issued eligibility certificate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner, Trade Tax, challenged the order of the Divisional Level Committee in appeal under section 10 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 before the Trade Tax Tribunal. The Trade Tax Tribunal by means of order dated January 9, 2004 has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Divisional Level Committee dated March 4, 2003. The revisionist/applicant has challenged the order of the Tribunal on different grounds, inter alia, that the Tribunal has committed manifest error of law, by relying upon the decision rendered in the case of Arora Box Industries, Varanasi v. Divisional Level Committee, Varanasi [1993] UPTC 204, in holding that the Divisional Level Committee has no power to review the order, as the power for granting eligibility....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the averments that the Trade Tax Tribunal has not committed any error in relying upon the decision of Arora Box Industries v. Divisional Level Committee, Varanasi reported in [1993] UPTC 204, in which after vesting the power with the Commissioner, the Divisional Level Committee exercised its power of review in its earlier order and the Division Bench of this court held that the order passed by the Divisional Level Committee is not sustainable and quashed the same. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel further invited the attention of this court towards rule 25(3)(c), which is reproduced hereunder: "25. Grant of eligibility Certificate.-(1) and (2)... (3)(c) If the application of a unit is rejected such unit may submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de (II) 3.. Solvent neem oil 4.. Solvent mustard oil 5.. Solvent soya oil 6.. Solvent mahua oil, etc. 7.. Solvent and expander sunflower and mustard oil De-oiled rice bran and de-oiled cakes of 1.. Neem 2.. Mustard 3.. Soya 4.. Mahua 5.. Sunflower, etc. And again after diversification the goods are to be produced as soyabean oil, mustard oil, sunflower oil, neem oil, mahua oil and deoiled extraction of soyabean, mustard, sunflower, neem, mahua, etc. From perusal of the order, I find that though the Tribunal has discussed that it is not a case of diversification, but it is a case of expansion, the Divisional Level Committee has committed error in making amendment in the eligibility certificate by granti....