Prakash Krishna, J. - These two revisions have been preferred at the instance of the Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow against common order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Kanpur in two connected second appeal Nos. 665 of 2000 and 666 of 2005 relating to the assessment years 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 whereby and whereunder it has allowed the appeals preferred by the dealer and set aside the assessment order creating demand for trade tax as also the first appellate order remanding the matter to the assessing authority with certain directions to record findings on the issues mentioned in the appellate order.

Both these revisions relate to the same assessee and the arguments by learned counsel were advanced in respect to the revision No. 2077 of 2005 relating to the assessment year 1997-1998 with the understanding that identical controversy is involved in the companion revision. By way of clarification, it may be added that the revision No. 2077 of 2005 arises out of assessment proceedings while the connected revision No. 2074 of 2005 arises out of reassessment proceedings initiated under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 with respect to the assessment year 1996-1997, which was the first year of the business of dealer - opposite party.

The facts of the case may be noticed in brief. The dealer - opposite party claims that it is an institution certified by the U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board. It carries on the business of manufacture and sale of mentha crystals. The mentha crystals were manufactured out of mentha oil purchased by it. The dealer claimed exemption on the sale of mentha crystals so sold and manufactured out of mentha oil purchased by it under Notification No. 2454 dated October 5, 1995 issued under section 4(c) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"). The case of the dealer is that its product, i.e., mentha crystals is exempt from payment of trade tax under entry No. 35, in particular of the said notification. The said plea did not find favour with the assessing authority. The assessment order was carried in appeal before the first appellate authority who was of the opinion that certain probing is required in the matter. Consequently, it set aside the assessment order and restored the matter to the file of the assessing officer to reframe the assessment order after ascertaining the facts on certain issues mentioned in the appellate order. Still aggrieved, the dealer further challenged the said order by way of second appeals before the Tribunal who by the order under revision set aside the appellate order and the assessment order as well and held that in view of the Notification No. 2454 dated 5th of October, 1995, the product of the dealer is not exigible to any tax under the Act.

In the memo of revision the following questions of law have been framed :

"(i) Whether the manufacturing of mentha crystals out of mentha oil purchased by the dealer is covered under entry No. 34 of the Notification No. 2454 dated October 5, 1995 ?

(ii) Whether the dealer is liable to exemption under the above notification even if he himself has not collected and processed the forest plants ?"

The contention of the learned standing counsel is that the dealer is not entitled to get the benefit of the aforesaid notification for the reasons more than one. On its own showing, the dealer has purchased the mentha oil and after processing the same manufactured mentha crystals. The mentha crystals do not fall under entry No. 34 of the said notification which reads - "collection and processing of forest plants for medicinal purposes". Admittedly, the dealer has not collected the mentha herbs rather it purchased it from the seller. The benefit of the said entry can be availed of only by such dealers who collects mentha herb and process thereafter for medicinal purposes. The view taken by the Tribunal that use of word "and" in between the words "collection" and "processing" should be read