COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX Vs. RAM INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Sanjeev Shankdhar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Pradeep Agrawal for the opposite-party. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has established a new unit for making machine blades and claimed exemption under Section 4-A which was granted by the department. Later, it was found that the assessee has used the old machines after hiring from M/s Agra Engineering Industries. So vide order dated 24.8.1987, the department opined that the industry unit is not a new unit, therefore, the eligibility certificate was cancelled by the Commissioner under Section 4-A(3). Against the said order, the assessee has filed a writ petition which was registered as Writ Petition No. 950 of 1987. This Court disposed of the writ petition by observing that alternative remedy is available to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and examining the material passed the impugned order dated 28.1.1995 where the order of Commissioner was set aside. Not being satisfied, the department is before this Court. With this background, I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the material available on record. From the record, it appears that M/s Agra Engineering Industries has given a job work to the assessee unit and for that purpose one power press and one Capstan G Shalt machine was given on hire basis. The said machines were exclusively meant for job work given by M/s Agra Engineering Industries as they were requiring blades in a particular manner. This machine was not used by the assessee for his own manufacturing. The Tribunal specifically observed that the certificate was cancelled only on the basis of doubt. Needless to mention that the Tribunal is a final fact finding authority as per the ratio laid down in the case of Kamla Ganpati v. Collector of Estate Duty, 253 ITR 692 SC. In the instant case, without having any substantive material, the Commissioner has cancelled the certificate on the basis of mere doubt that the machine might have been purchased by the assessee from M/s Agra Engineering Industries. But in fact it was brought on hire for job work which was supposed to be assigned to the assessee. The assessee unit has already established earlier with the new machine. When it is so, then I find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal which is hereby sustained along with the reason mentioned therein. No substantive question of law emerges. In the net result, the revision preferred by the department is dismissed.