Judgment :- SETHURAMAN, J. There are two points raised in this tax revision petition filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore Division. The first relates to the assessment of cotton waste. The assessee purchased cotton waste from dealers in the State and used them in spinning low counts yarn. The resultant cotton waste was thereafter sold by the assessee. The assessee disputed its liability to tax on the sale of such cotton waste obtained in the process of spinning. The assessing authority held that the cotton waste obtained in the process of spinning had to be treated as dust since no yarn could be spun out of it and that it was a new product different from the cotton waste purchased and used by the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal held that there was no proof to show that the tax had been paid at an earlier stage in respect of the cotton waste which emerged as a by-product and therefore the assessee as the first seller of such cotton was liable to tax. The assessee thereafter appealed to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the assessee had used only cotton waste purchased from other dealers within the State and that the waste cotton obtained in process of spinning and sold by them were only the rejects of such waste cotton used by it for spinning. The sales of the cotton waste were therefore held to be not taxable, because they were not the first sales in the State. This conclusion of the Tribunal is challenged by the State. As far as the assessability of the turnover of cotton waste is concerned, it is clear from the finding of the Tribunal that the waste was obtained only in the process of spinning and that the waste formed part of the cotton waste which had originally been purchased by the assessee in the State. In view of this finding of the Tribunal, it cannot be held that there was any error in the order of the Tribunal, concluding that the sale of the cotton waste represented only the second sale and not the first sale.The second point in dispute in this case relates to the sum of Rs. 4, 299. This sum represents the sale of old machinery. 4, 299. This sum represents the sale of old machinery. When the matter was before the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer who assessed the assessee, the assessee raised an objection that the said sum is not taxable as the sale was not in the course of business. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer while arriving at the turnover taxable in the hands of the assessee, deducted a sum of Rs. 4, 299 as he allowed the exemption claimed by the assessee thereon. At the stage of the appeal by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, there was no prayer at the instance of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer to enhance the assessment. Nor did the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on his own seek to enhance the assessment with reference to the said sum. However, when the matter came before the Tribunal, there was an enhancement petition filed by the State and the Tribunal held on the merits that the said sum of Rs. 4, 299 is not taxable. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the said sum of Rs. 4, 299 would be taxable in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company Limited and also the definition in section 2(d) of the Act. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, objected to the matter being considered at this stage, because he submitted that the enhancement petition before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal itself was not competent. The amount having been given as a deduction by the assessing authority itself and in the absence of any petition for enhancement before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the submission was that the petition for enhancement before the Tribunal was not at all competent. We accept this submission. As the matter had not been raised at the stage of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal could not have considered any objection which arose out of the original order of the assessing authority and not out of the order of the appellate authority.In these circumstances, we are unable to interfere with the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal as far as this turnover also is concerned, though our reasons for coming to this conclusion are different. This revision petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.