The exclusionary part of Annexure II to the notification dated July 27, 1991 should be construed strictly, and commodities mentioned therein should be given their ordinary and common sense meaning.

( 1 ) IN all the aforesaid revision petitions that have been filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act against the various orders passed by the Trade Tax tribunal, the controversy is as to whether special smokeless fuel (hereinafter referred to as "ssf") or coal manufactured by the respondents is a prohibited item under annexure II to the notification dated July 27, 1991 and no eligibility certificate could have been granted under section 4-A to the industrial units manufacturing such coal.

( 2 ) REVISION Petition No. 60 of 1999 is directed against the Tribunals order dated December 31, 1998 passed in appeal No. 46 of 1998 by which the Tribunal set aside an order passed by the commissioner under Section 4-A (3) of the Act whereby the later had cancelled an eligibility certificate granted to the respondents by the Divisional Level Committee.

( 3 ) REVISION Petition No. 67 of 1997 is directed against an order dated September 3, 1997 passed by the said Tribunal in appeal No. 71 of 1997 whereby the Tribunal quashed an order passed by the Divisional Level Committee rejecting the respondents application for the grant of an eligibility certificate. The Tribunal directed the Divisional Level Committee to issue an eligibility certificate.

( 4 ) REVISION Petition No. 56 of 1999 is directed against an order dated January 21, 1997 passed by the Tribunal in appeal No. 56 of 1997 whereby allowing the said appeal, the Tribunal set aside an order passed by the Divisional Level Committee rejecting the respondents application for the grant of an eligibility certificate under Section 4-A (3) of the Act and directing it to grant the same.

( 5 ) REVISION Petitions Nos. 7, 8 and 10 of 1998 are directed against an order dated September 26, 1997 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal whereby it set aside the orders passed by the Divisional level Committee rejecting the applications of the respondents for the grant of an eligibility certificate and directed it to grant the same.

( 6 ) THE last revision petition, i. e. , No, 95 of 1998 is directed against an order dated March 16, 1998 passed by the Tribunal whereby it set aside an order passed by the Divisional Level committee rejecting the respondents application under Section 4-A of the Act and directed it to grant the same.

( 7 ) I have heard Sri Rajiv Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the Commissioner-revisionist and Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, Senior Advocate, who appeared for the respondent in petition No. 60 of 1999 and Sri Pradeep Agarwal, Advocate, who appeared for the respondents in petition Nos. 67 of 1997 and 56 of 1999. In other petitions, no one appeared for the respondents.

( 8 ) UNDER Section 4-A of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, the Government has the power to grant exemption from trade tax if it is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do for increasing the production of any goods or for promoting the development of any industry in the State. The terms of the exemption and the conditions subject to which the same shall be granted have to be specified by the State Government in a notification to be issued for the purpose. In exercise of the said power, the Government of U. P. issued Notification No. ST-2-1093/xi-7 (42)-68-U. P. Act-XV/48-Order-90 dated July 27, 1991. The exemption was stated to be available to goods manufactured in a new unit other than the units of the type mentioned in annexure II. Annexure ii of the notification contains a list of industries not entitled to the facility of exemption from or reduction in the rate of tax. At serial No. 11, the entry is "coal powder, firewood, coal briquettes and charcoal manufacturing units". Then at serial No. 16 is another entry reading "hard coke making units". The respondents in all these revision petitions had set up industrial units for manufacturing SSF out of coal and the Divisional Level Committee and the Commissioner have taken the view that the commodity in question, i. e. ,