PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE present revision is directed against the order dated 23-5-1994 passed by Trade Tax tribunal Kanpur in Second Appeal No. 278 of 1994. ( 2 ) M/s Ashok Grih Udyog Kendra (P) Ltd. , the dealer, carried on the business of manufacture and sale of grinded spices and condiments etc. The assessment year involved in the present revision is 1988-89. The books of account of the dealer opposite party has been accepted by the assessing authority vide order dated 26-3-1993. But the assessing authority rejected the claim of exemption on the sale of grinded and mixed masala. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order the dealer opposite party filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Trade Tax. In appeal it was contended by the dealer opposite party that no show cause notice was given before levying tax on the turnover of mixed Masala. This contention was accepted by the first appellate authority and after setting aside the assessment order, the matter was remanded to the assessing authority to determine the turn over after giving an opportunity to the dealer. Still aggrieved a second appeal was filed by the dealer against the aforesaid remand order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed the Second appeal by order under revision and declared the dealer as not taxable on the transaction in dispute. ( 3 ) HEARD learned Standing Counsel for the applicant and Sri R. R. Kapoor learned counsel for the dealer opposite party. ( 4 ) LEARNED Standing counsel submitted that the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal was the validity of remand order passed by first appellate authority. If the Tribunal was not satisfied with the remand order passed by the first appellate authority it should have restored the case to the file of first appellate authority after setting aside the remand order. In contra learned counsel for the applicant supported the order of the Tribunal. ( 5 ) THE order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained for the reason more than one. The only grievance raised by the dealer opposite party before the first appellate authority was that before assessing the turn over of mixed Masala no show cause notice for not accepting the claim of the dealer, was given by the assessing authority. In absence of any opportunity of hearing the dealer could not place its case before the assessing authority. The only grievance raised by the dealer opposite party before the first appellate authority was that before assessing the turn over of mixed Masala no show cause notice for not accepting the claim of the dealer, was given by the assessing authority. In absence of any opportunity of hearing the dealer could not place its case before the assessing authority. This plea was accepted by the first appellate authority and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority to re-frame the assessment order after affording opportunity of hearing to the dealer. Strangely enough whatever contention was raised by the dealer opposite party before the first appellate authority was accepted by it. There was absolutely no occasion for the dealer to challenge the order of the first appellate authority, which was passed in his favour at this instance. Secondly, the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal was limited one. The question was as to whether opportunity of hearing should have been given to the dealer or not. Therefore, the Tribunal exceeded in its jurisdiction in travelling beyond the scope of the subject matter of appeal and in setting aside the assessment order. ( 6 ) A bare perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the dealer had purchased whole masala and after grinding it and mixing it with other Masala, sold them as Meat Masala, Garam masala etc. On this premise assessment order was framed. The Tribunal proceeded to decide the second appeal on the assumption that "the appellant had not mixed Masala at their end but had purchased the mixed masala named as Meat Masala, Sabzi Masala, Chat Masala and Garam masala etc. in bulk quantity". The said assumption of facts by the Tribunal is wholly perverse and against the material on record. This was an issue as to whether the dealer had purchased sabut mixed masala or it manufactured Meat Masala, Sabzi Masala etc. by admixturing different kinds of masala. It may also be noted here that the Tribunal has not set aside the finding recorded by the assessing authority in the assessment order that the Dealer after grinding and mixing different Masala sold them in the form of Meat Masala and Garam Masala etc. Thus it is clear that the Tribunal misdirected itself by wrongly assuming certain facts and, as such, exceeded in its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. Thus it is clear that the Tribunal misdirected itself by wrongly assuming certain facts and, as such, exceeded in its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. The things were not as they have been made out by the Tribunal which shall result in not only grave error of law but even gross miscarriage of justice. The order of the Tribunal runs into 15 pages. It has quoted several judicial authorities up to half of page 14 and there after observed that the case cannot be remanded to fill up any lecuna or to set up a new case or for assistance of any party. There after it jumped to the conclusion that in view of the decision of this Court referred to in the order, it is apparent that no new commodity came into existence in the appellants case. It has not given its independent reasoning. As already demonstrated above since the Tribunal proceeded in the case wrongly assuming certain facts which were not in existence, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained due to lack of proper finding and reasoning. ( 7 ) IN the result the order of the Tribunal is set aside. The Second appeal filed by the dealer opposite party before the Tribunal stands dismissed. The revision is allowed with costs of rupees one thousand. . .