JUDGMENT P. A. MOHAMMED, J. – This tax revision case is directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam in T.A. No. 430 of 1989. The petitioner before us is the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law). The respondent herein is the assessee, a registered dealer under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, "the Act"). 2. The assessee is a small-scale industrial unit eligible for sales tax exemption in view of S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980. However, the assessing authority disallowed the exemption while completing the assessment for the year 1986-87. In appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the assessee was entitled to exemption. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner remanded the case back to the assessing authority for verifying the certificate and for computing tax exemption. After the remand the assessing authority found that the assessee had not manufactured the entire product at its own place and therefore not entitled to exemption. Ultimately the matter came up before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the assessee was entitled to exemption and accordingly directed the assessing authority to grant exemption on the basis of the exemption certificate. The Tribunal also found that the rubber cess paid by the appellant could not be included in the taxable turnover. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the Revenue filed the present tax revision case. 3. Two questions were raised before us for determination. The first is with regard to the exemption available to the assessee in view of S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980 and the second is with regard to the taxability of the rubber cess paid by the assessee. 4. We will deal with the second question first. The above question is fully covered by the decision of this Court in Madras Rubber Factory Limited v. State of Kerala [1989] 74 STC 56 [This case has been reversed by the Supreme Court : See State of Kerala v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. [1998] 108 STC 583. - Ed.]. In view of the above decision the rubber cess paid by the assessee to the Rubber Board is not includible in the purchase turnover during the period. Therefore the contention of the Revenue in this regard cannot be accepted. 5. - Ed.]. In view of the above decision the rubber cess paid by the assessee to the Rubber Board is not includible in the purchase turnover during the period. Therefore the contention of the Revenue in this regard cannot be accepted. 5. As far as the first question is concerned, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the goods involved in the case is "produced" by the assessee. This question has to be examined in view of the decision of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ernakulam v. Surya Refineries (P) Ltd. (1991) KLJ (TC) 513. The Notification S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980 which is involved in the present case came up for consideration before the Division Bench. The relevant portion of the above notification is extracted Below : "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (15 of 1963), the Government of Kerala, having considered it necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby make an exemption in respect of the tax payable under the said Act on the turnover of the sale of goods produced and sold by the new industrial units under the small-scale industries for a period of five years from the date of commencement of sale of such goods by the said units subject to the conditions that the tax if any collected by such units by way of tax on their sales shall be paid over to Government and that sales tax, if any, already paid by such units to Government shall not be refunded : Provided that such units shall produce proceedings of the General Manager, District Industries Centre declaring the eligibility of the units for claiming exemption from sales tax : Provided further that the cumulative sales tax concession granted to a unit at any pint of time within this period shall not exceed 90 per cent of the cumulative gross fixed capital investment of the unit." The essential requisite for obtaining the benefit of exemption under the above notification is that the exemption claimed must be the turnover of the sale of goods "produced" and "sold" by the new industrial units. The assessing authority disallowed the exemption on the ground that the mixing of carbon black with rubber was done outside at Ettumanoor by another firm M/s. Midas Rubber. What is produced by the assessee is the tread rubber. The assessing authority disallowed the exemption on the ground that the mixing of carbon black with rubber was done outside at Ettumanoor by another firm M/s. Midas Rubber. What is produced by the assessee is the tread rubber. In the manufacture of tread rubber there are different processes leading to its final production. The mixing of carbon black with rubber is only a preliminary work and is not a major part of the manufacturing process. The counsel for the assessee submits that the unit was compelled to carry on these preliminary process from outside in view of the pollution problem. Whatever that be, we cannot say that the assessee has not "produced" the tread rubber only because a minor part of its work, namely, mixing the carbon black with raw rubber was done outside. The Division Bench in the above case observed thus : "On the basis of the above finding, we have to hold that the assessee has complied with the conditions laid down in S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980 dated September 29, 1980. It is conceded before us that the assessee is a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and is liable to pay sales tax. It follows that the assessee is entitled to legitimate exemption provided by the very same Act. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, is the final fact-finding authority, has fund that the assessee fulfilled both the conditions required to claim the exemption provided in the notification. We concur with the said view. No material was placed before us to assail the said finding the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal." As far as the present case is concerned, the Tribunal in unequivocal terms observed thus : "There is no meaning in refusing exemption to the appellant on the ground that mixing of carbon black with rubber was done outside at Ettumanoor. Mixing of carbon black with rubber is a small part of the whole process of manufacture employed by the appellant. The appellant has satisfied the condition that the goods sold would be 'produced' by the eligible unit." In view of the above finding on the question of fact available in the case, we do not find any justifiable material to disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. 6. The appellant has satisfied the condition that the goods sold would be 'produced' by the eligible unit." In view of the above finding on the question of fact available in the case, we do not find any justifiable material to disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. 6. The Government Pleader however brought to our notice the decision of this Court in Vimala Printer, Kollam v. State of Kerala (1994) 2 KTR 188 (Ker). What the above Division Bench decision said is that the assessing authority has got power to examine the question whether the goods were really produced by the assessee. We have no quarrel with the above proposition. There is no dispute in this case with regard to the genuineness of the certificate. 7. In view of the discussion hereinabove, the contentions advanced by the counsel are liable to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. The tax revision case is dismissed. Petition dismissed.