R. K. AGRAWAL, J. ( 1 ) R. K. Industries, Muzaffarnagar, has filed the present revision against the order dated January 1, 1991, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Muzaffarnagar Bench, Muzaffarnagar, in second appeal No. 709 of 1985 (1977-78), relating to proceeding under Section 15-A (1) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that the applicant is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of crushers and its parts. During the assessment year 1977-78, it had purchased spare parts and machineries as well as iron steel against form III-B. The penalty proceeding under Section 15-A (1) (1) was initiated and a sum of Rs. 12,000 was imposed as penalty. However, in the first appeal filed by the assessee, the assistant Commissioner (Judicial) had set aside the penalty. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the commissioner of Trade Tax has preferred appeal under Section 10 of the Act before the tribunal. The Tribunal vide impugned order has allowed the appeal and restored the penalty order. ( 3 ) I have heard Shri R. R. Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S. D. Singh, learned standing Counsel, for the respondent. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in respect of assessment years 1976-77, 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81 also the penalty proceeding under Section 15-A (1) (1)was initiated against the applicant in respect of similar transactions/purchases made against form iii-B. The penalty imposed under Section 15-A (1) (1) of the Act was deleted by the Assistant commissioner (Judicial) by common order dated January 25, 1985. Before the Assistant commissioner (Judicial) the appeal for the assessment year 1977-78 was also there. The commissioner of Trade Tax had filed appeals under Section 10 of the Act in respect of all the assessment years. All the appeals except the appeal for the assessment year 1977-78, were heard and decided by the Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow vide judgment and order dated April 23, 1988 and the Tribunal had dismissed all the appeals filed by the Commissioner. All the appeals except the appeal for the assessment year 1977-78, were heard and decided by the Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow vide judgment and order dated April 23, 1988 and the Tribunal had dismissed all the appeals filed by the Commissioner. It had upheld the deletion of the penalty by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), However, the appeal for the assessment year 1977-78, was not decided earlier as it was cognizable by the Division Bench of the Tribunal. Subsequently, in view of the amendment made under Section 10 of the Act, the appeal was heard and decided by single member. It is submitted that before the Tribunal, the applicant had filed copy of the order dated April 23, 1988 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, u. P. , Lucknow, but the (Tribunal has not adverted to the said order. The facts being similar, the applicant submits that the Tribunal has committed error in upholding the levy of penalty when in similar circumstances, the penalty for assessment years has been deleted. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal has not considered its earlier order dated April 23, 1988, passed in a similar situation which vitiates the impugned order dated January 1, 1991. Thus, the impugned order dated January 1, 1991 is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. In the result, the revision is allowed. .