JUDGMENT :

RITU BAHRI, C.J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

2. The revisionist has filed by the present revision seeking to quash the judgment and order passed by the learned Commercial Tax Tribunal, Dehradun in Second Appeal No. 55 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and the Appellate Order No. 09/2023 (Assessment Year 2013-14) (State), passed under Section 25(7), read with Section 29(4) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist is engaged in manufacture and sale of Retread Rubber. The revisionist established a factory to manufacture Retread Rubber at Salimpur, Rajputana, Roorkee in March, 2010. The process of retreading, i.e. manufacturing ‘Retread Rubber’ involves removing the old worn-out tread from a worn-out tyer, i.e. putting a new rubber surface on the outer part of the worn-out tyre. The “Retread Rubber” in layman’s language, is a “Procured Rubber” which is used for retreading of Tyre & Tubes. The classification dispute, as to whether the self manufactured retread rubber would be classified in Schedule II(B), i.e. covered under Section 4(2)(b)(i)(b) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005