R. R. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax for the assessment year 1975-76 is directed against the order dated 10th April, 1987 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal. ( 2 ) THE first submission made by the Standing Counsel appearing for the Commissioner of Sales tax is that the Tribunal is not justified in affirming the acceptance of account books of the assessee. From a perusal of the order passed by the first appellate authority, I find that the account books were rejected on the basis of difference between the returned turnover and the turnover as shown in the account books. The other ground for rejection of account books was that the assessee made purchases of some imported goods without form 31. The Assistant commissioner (Judicial) had accepted the explanation of the assessee regarding the said difference between returned and books version of turnover and had also held on the facts of the case and the various registers maintained by the assessee that there has been compliance of the provisions of Section 12 (2) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act and, therefore, the account books of the assessee could not be rejected. The Sales Tax Tribunal has also confirmed the aforesaid finding. After hearing learned Standing Counsel, I find that there is no error of law involved in the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in so far as the affirmance of acceptance of account books is concerned. ( 3 ) THE second submission made by the learned Standing Counsel relates to the controversy between the parties is regarding the rate of tax payable by the assessee on zinc dross. According to the assessee under the notification dated 31st October, 1983, the assessee is liable to pay tax at the rate of 1 per cent, whereas according to the department the assessee is liable to pay tax at the rate of 3 per cent as unclassified item. I, however, find that so far as this controversy is concerned, the same is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Gopal Das Chhoiey Lal 1985 UPTC 1152. It is held in the said case that zinc dross is nothing but zinc and, therefore, is liable to tax at the rate of 1 per cent. It is held in the said case that zinc dross is nothing but zinc and, therefore, is liable to tax at the rate of 1 per cent. In view of the said authority of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Gopal Das Chhotey Lal 1985 UPTC 1152, in my opinion, there is no error of law involved in the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in this regard also. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the department in support of his second submission has relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kalicharan Satish Chandra v. Uttar pradesh State 1975 UPTC 278. It is held in this case that alloy of zinc and aluminium does not fall within the entry "copper, tin, nickel, zinc or any alloy containing any of those metals only" and its product is to be taxed as an unclassified item. Thus the said case did not relate to zinc dross. Moreover, the assessee was not represented in the said case. Learned counsel for the department also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sirdanwal Industries, Rajmandi, Agra 1981 UPTC 405. This case is also of no help to the department as article of brass was involved in the same. Therefore, both the above cases are distinguishable. ( 5 ) IN the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs as nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee. .