M. C. AGARWAL, J. These four revision petitions under section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, are directed against a common order dated February 13, 1996, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Varanasi, whereby it partly allowed the dealers second appeals for the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90. 2. I have heard Sri Alok Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, and Sri C. S. Singh, learned standing Counsel for the respondent. 3. The revisionist is a dealer in iron scrap and old timber sleepers that it purchases from the railway authorities of Eastern Railway at Moghal Sarai. For all these years, the dealer had declared no trading activity and vide assessment order dated March 16, 1990, for the assessment year 1986-87 and a common assessment order dated November 23, 1990, for the other assessment years it was declared to be non-taxable. Thereafter, some incriminating material was found during a survey held on March 20, 1991, and all assessments were reopened under section 21 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act and fresh assessments were made. 4. For the assessment year 1986-87, the assessing officer determined the turnover of iron scrap at Rs. 12,00,000 which was reduced to Rs. 7,00,000 by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and to Rs. 3,60,000 by the Tribunal. 5. For the assessment year 1987-88, the assessing officer determined the turnover at Rs. 17,00,000 which was reduced to Rs. 10,00,000 and Rs. 5,00,000 on first and second appeals. 6. For the assessment year 1988-89, the assessing officer estimated the turnover of iron scrap at Rs. 16,00,000 and of timber sleepers at Rs. 4,00,000. This was reduced to Rs. 11,50,000 and Rs. 1,00,000 respectively by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and to Rs. 6,00,000 and Rs. 1,00,000 by the Tribunal. 7. For the assessment year 1989-90, the assessing officer determined the turnover of iron scrap at Rs. 16,00,000 and that of timber sleepers at Rs. 4,00,000. This Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) reduced the turnover to Rs. 12,00,000 and Rs. 1,00,000 respectively. Its order is silent about the turnover of timber. 8. The contention of the dealer before the assessing officer and the appellate authorities was that he purchases iron and steel scrap from the railway authorities at Moghal sarai within the State of U. P. and sells the same to steel rolling mills and therefore, the turnover of scrap is not taxable under the Act. 8. The contention of the dealer before the assessing officer and the appellate authorities was that he purchases iron and steel scrap from the railway authorities at Moghal sarai within the State of U. P. and sells the same to steel rolling mills and therefore, the turnover of scrap is not taxable under the Act. This contention has not been accepted by the authorities who have taken the view that the assessee is the manufacturer of scrap and, therefore, the sales of the same by it are taxable. As regards timber, the orders of the authorities below do not mention on what basis the turnover thereof has been held to be taxable. 9. Iron and steel, as defined in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is taxable under U. P. Sales Tax Act (now U. P. Trade Tax Act) at the point of sale by manufacturer or importer. What is "iron and steel" has been specified in items (i) to (xvi) of clause (iv) of section 14. Item Nos. (i), (x) and (xiii) that are relevant are as under : " (i) pig iron and cast iron including ingot moulds, bottom plates, iron scrap, cast iron scrap, runner scrap and iron skull scrap; (x) steel melting scrap in all forms including steel skull, turnings and borings; (xiii) fish plate bars, bearing plate bars, crossing sleeper bars, fish plates, bearing plates, crossing sleepers and pressed steel sleepers, rails - heavy and light crane rails;" The above entries would show that iron scrap is mentioned in item No. (i) while steel melting scrap is mentioned in item No. (x) which covers steel melting scrap in all forms. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that iron and steel scrap being taxable on sale by manufacturer or importer, the sales by the revisionist could not be taxed unless it was established that the revisionist is a manufacturer or importer of iron and steel scrap from the railway authorities at Mughal Sarai in the State of U. P. and admittedly sells the same to steel rolling mills and hence the turnover is not taxable. He stressed that though there was a survey during which various documents were sized, but none of them indicated that the dealer-revisionist either manufactured or imported iron and steel or its scrap. He stressed that though there was a survey during which various documents were sized, but none of them indicated that the dealer-revisionist either manufactured or imported iron and steel or its scrap. The learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that since the items purchased by the revisionist were cut into pieces by the revisionist, he becomes a manufacturer. He relied on the definition of "manufacture" in section 2 (e-1) of the Act which defines "manufacture" to mean producing, making, mining, collecting, extracting, altering, ornamenting, finishing or otherwise processing, treating or adopting any goods. According to the learned standing Counsel, therefore, if goods included in scrap are cut for the facility of transport, packing, etc. , it would also amount to "manufacture". 11. In the assessment order for the assessment year 1986-87 the assessing officer has mentioned that two bills found during survey indicated that iron scrap was sold to a rolling mill of Shahganj. He mentions that the dealer has not disclosed the source of acquisition of scrap though it had stated that it purchased the same within the State of U. P. In the assessment order for the assessment year 1987-88 the assessing officer states that Ashok Kumar, a partner of the firm, told him that during the year under consideration scrap worth Rs. 4,64,983 was purchased from Eastern Railway, Mughal Sarai. The dealer also produced the sale order in respect of this transaction. The genuineness of this purchase has been accepted. The assessing officer relied on an entry in the remarks column of the said sale order which stated that the purchaser had the right to cut the goods sold. This according to the assessing officer proved that the goods were cut and turned into scrap. He, therefore, treated the revisionist to be a manufacturer of the scrap sold. 12. In the assessment order for the assessment year 1988-89 the assessing officer states that the assessee purchased rails from the Railway Department and converted them into scrap by cutting them. Nothing new is stated in the assessment order for the assessment year 1989-90. 13. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and the Trade Tax Tribunal disposed of the appeals for all the four years by common orders. The Assistant Commissioner mentions that the dealer purchases the goods from railways in auction and at the time of purchase the goods are not in the form of scrap. 13. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and the Trade Tax Tribunal disposed of the appeals for all the four years by common orders. The Assistant Commissioner mentions that the dealer purchases the goods from railways in auction and at the time of purchase the goods are not in the form of scrap. The goods are cut and converted into scrap by the dealer and that is how scrap is produced. 14. The Tribunal in its order again refers to the entry in the remarks column of the sale bill which stated that the purchaser (revisionist) has the right to cut the goods and takes it as the proof of the goods not being scrap when purchased by the dealer and scrap being produced by the dealer by cutting the goods. Contradicting itself, the Tribunal a few lines later states that the dealer purchases iron scrap and when a substantial quantity is stocked it is sold to some other trader. 15. Thus the authorities below admit that what was sold by the dealer is iron/steel scrap. They do not say that the dealer imported the goods from outside State of U. P. The assessing officer has admitted that one document showed purchases from railways at Mughal Sarai. He did not bother to make any enquiries from the railway authorities nor mentions that he had any information that the scrap was purchased from any railway authority outside U. P. As regards cutting of the goods, apart from the entry in the remarks column of sale order, the authorities do not mention any evidence to show that in fact the goods were cut. What were those goods has also not been mentioned. The dealer is not mentioned to have admitted cutting of the goods. Ashok Kumar, a partner of the firm, who appeared before the assessing officer is not mentioned to have admitted cutting of the goods. Thus there was no evidence whatsoever to establish that the dealer did not purchase scrap and cut the goods and observations to this effect are based on mere conjecture. 16. Further, if items purchased as iron/steel scrap from the railways are cut to smaller sizes for facility of transport, etc. , the activity would not amount to manufacture. It is anomalous to say that the dealer was manufacturing scrap out of scrap. 16. Further, if items purchased as iron/steel scrap from the railways are cut to smaller sizes for facility of transport, etc. , the activity would not amount to manufacture. It is anomalous to say that the dealer was manufacturing scrap out of scrap. As held by the honourable Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra [1976] 37 STC 319; 1976 UPTC 282, where commercial goods without change of their identity as such goods are merely subjected to some processing of finishing or are merely joined together, they may remain commercially the goods which cannot be taxed again, a series of sales, so long as they retain their identity as goods of a particular type. Iron and steel including scrap is subjected to single point tax and the definition of "manufacture" as quoted above cannot be so extended that cutting the scrap of rails into smaller pieces may be treated as manufacturing scrap. For the above reasons the Trade Tribunal was not right in upholding the levy of sales tax on the sales of iron and steel scrap made by the assessee revisionist. As regards the quantum of turnover of scrap or timber, no argument was raised in this revision petition. 17. Now we come to the taxability of the turnover of timber. It is admitted that that the dealer sold was old railway sleepers purchased from the railways. They too are claimed to have been purchased from the railways at Mughal Sarai. They is not even an iota of evidence that the dealer imported them from outside the State. Admittedly sale of timber is taxable if the sale is made by the Forest Department, the U. P. Forest Corporation or by private forest owner or by an importer. The revisionist is none of them. Therefore, the sale of old railway sleepers purchased by it in U. P. from the railways was not taxable under the Act. 18. For the above reasons the revision petitions are allowed and partly setting aside the Tribunals order dated February 13, 1996 in assessees second appeal Nos. 636 to 639 of 1993 for assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 respectively. 18. For the above reasons the revision petitions are allowed and partly setting aside the Tribunals order dated February 13, 1996 in assessees second appeal Nos. 636 to 639 of 1993 for assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 respectively. It is ordered that the quantum of turnover determined by the Tribunal is upheld but the turnover so determined is held to be not liable to any tax under the U. P. Sales Tax Act (now U. P. Trade Tax Act ). The dealers said appeals will stand partly allowed accordingly. Parties will bear their own costs. Petitions allowed. .