MANJULA CHELLUR, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant herein is a dealer registered both under Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short referred to as KST and CST Act ). ( 2 ) ONE M/s. Indumathi Industries had got the financial assistance from Karnataka State Financial Corporation (KSFC ). The said unit was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of fried gram. The appellant herein purchased the said small scale industrial unit (SSI) in a public auction and had been put in possession of the same on 25. 11. 1992 by K. S. F. C. ( 3 ) THE appellant, while filing the annual returns for the assessment year 1993-94 had claimed exemption from payment of tax under the KST Act and also under the Central Act under a bonafide belief that it is a new industrial unit and therefore, was entitled for the benefit of the notification issued by the State Government bearing No. FD 101 CSI 87 (1) dated 7. 6. 1989. The claim of the appellant was rejected by the assessing authority while concluding the assessment by its order dated 5. 7. 1995. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant had preferred an appeal by producing the necessary certificate. The appellate authority by its order dated 15. 12. 97 allowed the appeal holding that the appellant was eligible for benefit of the notification till 7. 6. 1994. The appellate authority further held that the appellant was entitled for incentive benefits as well upto 50% of the tax liability. Taking exception to this order of the appellate authority, the Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Davanagere issued a notice under Section 22-A (1) of the KST Act. The appellant/assessee, after service of notice regarding proposal to set aside the order passed by the appellate authority filed objections contending that the order of the appellate authority was not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The appellant/ assessee further contended that no reason was assigned in the said notice proposing revision of the order passed by the appellate authority. However, the revisional authority held that the appellant/assessee was not entitled for such claim as the industrial unit which was purchased by the present appellant was not a new unit but an old unit. Aggrieved by the said order of the Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the present appeal is filed before us. However, the revisional authority held that the appellant/assessee was not entitled for such claim as the industrial unit which was purchased by the present appellant was not a new unit but an old unit. Aggrieved by the said order of the Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the present appeal is filed before us. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the appellant/assessee, the very object of the legislature, to bring such notification was to give incentive to the small scale industries and not to the persons who run the industry. By placing reliance on the notification No. FD 101 CSI 87 (1) dated 7. 6. 89, he strenuously contended that the goods manufactured and sold by the SSI unit enjoyed certain exemptions mentioned thereunder irrespective of the ownership of the industry. Further, according to the Counsel for the appellant, as the present SSI unit was purchased in a public auction by the appellant, it only signifies change, of symbolic possession, therefore, all the benefits under the said notification available to the earlier unit Le M/s Indumathi Industries are also available to the present appellant. Hence, the appellant contends that in all force and in all respects, the Previous concern, i. e. the unit remains, the same expect change of ownership. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, at no stretch of imagination, it can be treated as an expansion, diversification or modernization of the unit and the machinery which was already part of the earlier unit do not change its original form by change of ownership, therefore, it cannot be said that the machinery is a second-hand one. ( 5 ) THE learned Advocate for the Revenue contends once the unit is a second hand unit or old unit when it commences first commercial production, the benefits flowing under the notification will not accrue to such unit. Therefore, he seeks for confirmation of the order of the revisional authority. ( 6 ) WE have taken into consideration the averments in the appeal and also the contentions of the learned Counsels. Therefore, he seeks for confirmation of the order of the revisional authority. ( 6 ) WE have taken into consideration the averments in the appeal and also the contentions of the learned Counsels. We have gone through the following decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant: a) Wipro Infotech Limited Vs Additional Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Assessment II) And Others, 117 Stc 244; b) Kwik Fit Otto Parts Private Limited And Another Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, 24-Paraganas Circle And Others, 99 Stc 180: c) Vishambhar Dayal Munna Lal Basseri Vs Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Dholpur, 88 Stc 547 And d) Sree Rajvel And Company Vs State Of Kerala And Others, 48 Stc 557. ( 7 ) THE Department of Industries and Commerce issued a valuation certificate dated 17. 10. 1996 which is at Annexure "h. It indicates that M/s Nandakishore Industries, No. 9-13-26, Gadwal Road, Raichur, has permanent certificate No. 09-17-02030-PMTSSI. dated 31. 05. 88 to 03. 02. 1995 and the said industrial unit is a small scale industry engaged in the, production of fried gram. The production was commenced by M/s Indumathi Fried Gram Industries but the said M/s Indumathi Industries unit has been transferred to Mr. Sathyanarayana, Proprietor of M/s Nandakishore Industries on 7. 11. 92 by KSFC. ( 8 ) THE question that arises for our consideration is whether the appellant is running a new unit or an old unit? The original owner of the machinery was M/s Indumathi Industries which was purchased by the present appellant i. e. M/s Nandakishore Industries M/s Indumathi Industries had the registration relating back to the year 1988. When they were not able to repay the loan borrowed from KSFC, it was brought for auction and the same was purchased by the present appellant Sri Sathyanarayana, proprietor of M/s Nandakishore Industries. Therefore, the relevant fact would be the "unit" and not the person who runs the same. It is relevant to mention here the very notification, Sl. No. 3 of the table and also the explanation to the said notification, which reads as under: no. Therefore, the relevant fact would be the "unit" and not the person who runs the same. It is relevant to mention here the very notification, Sl. No. 3 of the table and also the explanation to the said notification, which reads as under: no. FD 101 CSI 87 (1), Bangalore, dated 7th June 1989 SO 931, Karnataka Gazette, dated the 8th June, 1989"in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) Of sub section (1) of Section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) the Government of Karnataka hereby exempts with immediate effect the tax payable under the said Act, in respect of the goods manufactured 'and sold by Tiny Sector and S. S. 1 units mentioned in column 2 of the table below, located at places, subject to the ceilings and during period indicated in the respective column Nos. 3, 4 and 5 thereofS