R. K. AGRAWAL, J. ( 1 ) HINDUSTAN Coir Products Ltd. , Sikanderabad, District Bulandshahr, was granted an eligibility certificate under the provisions of Section 4-A of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 by the District level Committee granting exemption from payment of tax on the sale of finished goods for a period of six years with effect from January 7, 1988 to January 6, 1994. The unit of Hindustan coir Products Ltd, was financed by the U. P. Financial Corporation. On account of non-payment of instalments and interest by the Hindustan Coir Products Ltd. , the U. P. Financial corporation took over the possession of the unit and sold it to Super Coir India, Sikanderabad, Bulandshahr, on January 8, 1992. The purchaser firm, namely, Super Coir India made an application under section 4a (2b) of the Act on March 4, 1992 before the Commissioner of Trade Tax for continuing the facility of exemption for the remaining period. ( 2 ) IT appears that the Commissioner of Trade Tax had initiated proceedings under Section 4a (3)of the Act against Hindustan Coir Products Ltd. , on the ground that the said unit has discontinued production since March 1, 1990 and the discontinuance of production has been for more than six months at a stretch. From the record it further appears that the Commissioner, trade Tax, had passed an order on March 9, 1998 ex parts whereby he had cancelled the eligibility certificate issued to Hindustan Coir Products Ltd. No notice was given to the purchaser firm, namely, Super Coir India. When it came to know about the order dated March 9, 1998 it felt aggrieved by the said order and thereafter filed an appeal under Section 10 (2) of the act before the President, Trade Tax Tribunal, U. P. , Lucknow, a copy whereof has been filed as annexure 2 to the revision. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated April 6, 2000 had dismissed the appeal filed by the present applicant. ( 3 ) I have heard Shri V. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S. D. Singh, learned standing Counsel who represents the respondents. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated April 6, 2000 had dismissed the appeal filed by the present applicant. ( 3 ) I have heard Shri V. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S. D. Singh, learned standing Counsel who represents the respondents. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal was not at all justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground that Hindustan Coir Products Ltd. , has discontinued the manufacturing for a period of more than six months at a stretch. He invited the attention of the court to the various documents filed along with memo of appeal before the Tribunal under section 10 of the Act to show that the said unit had not discontinued the production for more than six months at a stretch. Any person aggrieved by an order passed under Section 4a (3) can file an appeal before the Tribunal. Super Coir India is an aggrieved person against the order dated March 9, 1998 passed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax under Section 4a (3) of the Act. Thus it is entitled to file an appeal and in fact had filed an appeal by describing itself as successor firm of Hindustan Coir Products Ltd. It is also not in dispute that Super Coir India, was not given any opportunity of hearing by the Commissioner before passing the said order. Thus no opportunity was given to the Super Coir India for filing any documents and it was the first stage which it had availed by filing the documents along with the memo of appeal. It was incumbent upon the Tribunal to consider the documents filed along with the memo of appeal and thereafter decide the appeal. The Tribunal has not at all adverted to the various documents filed by Super Coir India while deciding the appeal, Miscarriage of justice has resulted by the impugned order of the Tribunal since it has not considered the documents filed by the applicant alongwith the memo of appeal. Thus the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. Thus the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. It may be mentioned here that a Division Bench of this Court in C. M. Writ Petition No. 852 of 1999 decided on September 14, 1999 had stayed the recovery proceedings till the disposal of the appeal pending before the authority concerned. The Tribunal has decided the appeal on April 6, 2000 and this Court while admitting the petition on July 17, 2000 had stayed the recovery proceedings till September 11, 2000. Since the matter has been remanded to the Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh, in the interest of justice it is directed that the recovery proceedings against the applicant shall remain stayed till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. .