ANSHUMAN SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THESE two revisions have been preferred by the Commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 11 (1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act against the judgment passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, ghaziabad, dated 21st October, 1985, relating to assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 (April), under the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE is a manufacturer of conduit pipes. In the assessment years in question, it claimed exemption on the ground that it was a new unit. The contention raised by the respondent-assessee regarding the new unit was not accepted by the Sales Tax Officer. The assistant Commissioner (Judicial), in first appeal filed by the assessee, also endorsed the finding of the Sales Tax Officer regarding the grant of exemption to the assessee-respondent. In second appeal filed by the respondent-assessee, the Tribunal held that the respondent was a new unit and was entitled to exemption. ( 3 ) THE grievance of the Revenue in this case is that since the assessee did not produce the eligibility certificate granted by the Director of Industries before the Sales Tax Officer, the Sales tax Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the assessee was a new unit. ( 4 ) MR. Bharatji Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand submitted that it is true that the eligibility certificate issued by the Director of Industries is a best piece of evidence but in a case where no eligibility certificate is produced by the assessee, it is open to the authorities under the Act to record a finding on the basis of other evidence and materials whether the unit was a new unit and was entitled to exemption or not. However, Mr. Bharatji Agarwal has produced the original eligibility certificate issued by the Director of Industries to the assessee in the relevant year. Since the assessee has been issued the eligibility certificate which was not produced by the respondent-assessee before the authorities, I do not consider it proper to entertain the said certificate and record a finding of fact in the present case. I am of the view that the matter should be decided by the Tribunal in the light of the observations made in the case of kumar Fuels v. State of U. P. 1986 UPTC 357. I am of the view that the matter should be decided by the Tribunal in the light of the observations made in the case of kumar Fuels v. State of U. P. 1986 UPTC 357. It is made clear that the Tribunal will allow the respondent-assessee to file the original eligibility certificate issued by the Director of Industries, which shall consider the same in recording a finding whether the assessee was a new unit or not. In case the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the eligibility certificate was issued to the respondent-assessee by the Director of Industries, it would grant exemption to the respondent permissible to it under the law. ( 5 ) IN the result, the revision succeeds in part and is allowed. The order of the Tribunal to that extent is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal of the assessee afresh in the light of the observations made above. However, there will be no order as to costs. ( 6 ) LET a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned as contemplated under Section 11 (8)of the Act. .