PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THESE two revisions are at the instance of Commissioner of Trade Tax and have been filed against a common order of the Tribunal passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Varanasi. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1988-89 (U. P. and Central ). The dealer/opposite party carries on the business of manufacture and sale of aluminum wire rod and aluminum dross. Its original assessment order was passed on 29th August, 1992, wherein the aforesaid goods namely aluminum rod and dross were taxed at the rate of 2. 2%, treating them as metal. Subsequently, the assessing officer issued a notice under Section 21 of U. P. Sales Tax Act in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Aluminum Corporation Ltd v. State of u. P. 1981 UPTC 1249 to take the aforesaid goods as unclassified item. The assessing authority after hearing the dealer/opposite found that the aluminum wire rod and dross does not come in the ambit of entry relating to metal. They are rolled products and are commercially different from the metal. The assessment order was framed treating the aforesaid goods as unclassified item and levied the tax at the rate of 8. 8% by the order dated 16th September, 1993. In appeal filed by the dealer/opposite party the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) allowed the appeals and set aside the reassessment order on the finding that the aluminum wire rod manufactured by the dealer/opposite party is as a matter of fact is wire bar. The aluminum wire is produced from wire bar through the rolling process and, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Aluminum Corporation Ltd, these goods are taxable as metal. This order has been confirmed by the Tribunal in second appeal. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 3 ) THE learned Standing Counsel submitted hat the dealer/opposite party is manufacturer of aluminum wire rod which does not fall in the category of metal. The aluminum wire rod is a manufactured goods and is not billet or ingot. Reliance has been placed by him on the judgment of Hindustan Aluminum Corporation Limited (supra ). ( 3 ) THE learned Standing Counsel submitted hat the dealer/opposite party is manufacturer of aluminum wire rod which does not fall in the category of metal. The aluminum wire rod is a manufactured goods and is not billet or ingot. Reliance has been placed by him on the judgment of Hindustan Aluminum Corporation Limited (supra ). ( 4 ) IN contra, the learned counsel for the dealer/opposite party submitted that the aluminum wire rod is not the finished product and is liable to be taxed in the category of metal. He further invited my attention towards the order of the first appellate authority. Emphasis was laid by him that the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has found that the aluminum wire rod as a matter of fact is wire bar. ( 5 ) IN the present case both the learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance in support of their respective submission on the judgment of Hindustan Aluminum Corporation Limited v. State of U. P. 1981 UPTC 1249,, (hereinafter referred to as Hindalco ). Sri Kunwar Saxena, learned counsel for the dealer/opposite party also placed the judgment of the High Court in the case of Hindalco v. State of U. P. reported in 1977 UPTC 81. The learned counsel for the dealer took me through the last portion of para 6 of the judgment of the High Court in the case of hindalco and submitted that this Court has noticed that there three types of aluminum products (i) cast products (ii) rolled products and (iii) extrusions. The cast products consists of (i)aluminum ingots (ii) aluminum alloy ingots (iii) wire bar (iv) properzi redraw rods and (v)billets. Rolled products are obtained by rolling ingots and extrusions are manufactured from billets. Sri Saxena submitted that wire bars according to the aforesaid judgment is kind of cast products, therefore, in the present case he submitted that the wire bars were rightly taxed as metal. He further submitted that so far as taxability of cast product is concerned it was held by the High Court that they are liable to be taxed as metal and this part of the judgment was not challenged by the department before the High Court. ( 6 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel submitted that the commodity in question is wire rod which falls in the category of rolled product and is taxable as unclassified item. ( 6 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel submitted that the commodity in question is wire rod which falls in the category of rolled product and is taxable as unclassified item. ( 7 ) I have carefully considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The real question which falls for determination in the present case is whether the wire rod falls in the category of cast product or it falls in the category of rolled products. In this connection the learned Standing Counsel invited my attention and rightly so towards paragraph 7 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindalco. It has been mentioned therein that the rolled products included billets, coils and sheet circles and strips. Extrusions were manufactured in the shape of bars, rods, structures, tubes, angles, channels and different types of sections. The supreme Court has affirmed the judgment of the High Court with regard to the taxability of rolled product and extrusions and has held that these items do not fall in the category of metal and are liable to be taxed as unclassified item. A bare perusal of reassessment order would show that the tax was levied treating the item in question as aluminum wire rod. The first appellate authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has given absolutely no basis for treating the aluminum wire rod as wire bar. Therefore, the argument of the dealer/opposite party that the finding has been recorded by the first appellate authority that the applicant is a dealer of wire bar is based upon no material and is liable to be ignored. This Court in the case of Hindalco, which was subsequently affirmed by the Apex Court has held that wire rod is not taxable as metal. The first appellate authority without giving any basis, equated wire rod and wire bar as one and the same thing. Learned counsel for the dealer/opposite party also could not point out any material to show that the aluminum wire rod is the same thing as the aluminum wire bar. Apart from the above a close reading of para 6 of the judgment of the High Court in the case of Hindalco would show that the wire bars and wire rods were treated differently. Wire bars have been treated as cast product and wire rod has been treated as rolled product. Apart from the above a close reading of para 6 of the judgment of the High Court in the case of Hindalco would show that the wire bars and wire rods were treated differently. Wire bars have been treated as cast product and wire rod has been treated as rolled product. The manufacturing activities carried on by the dealer also supports the view that it is manufacturing aluminum wire rod and not aluminum wire bar. ( 8 ) THE Tribunal as well as the first appellate authority have placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Devi Dayal Aluminum Industries v. CST 1992 UPTC 1145. It was held by this Court that the aluminum circle falls in the category of metal. This judgment has been set aside by the Supreme Court and it has been held that the aluminum circle is not a metal. Thus, the basis on which the Tribunal proceeded stood knocked off. In Atul Aluminum industries v. CST 1982 STI 77, the High Court has confirmed the order of the Tribunal on aluminum rods. The Tribunal in that case had rejected the contention of the dealer therein that the aluminum rod is nothing but aluminum in its primary form. ( 9 ) CST v. Vijai Aluminum Works 1999 UPTC 1089 is an authority for the proposition that the aluminum sheets and circles are not metal but unclassified items. ( 10 ) THE upshot of the above discussion is that the aluminum rod is not a metal. It is taxable as unclassified item and is not liable to be taxed as metal. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the dealer pointed out that in the questions framed in the memo of revision, the department has raised the question of applicability of rate of tax on aluminum wire rod and dross. The question of taxability of dross does not arise from the order of the Tribunal. It is correct that in the order of the Tribunal there is no discussion about the rate of taxability of dross but the assessing authority taxed the escaped turnover of aluminum wire rod and dross as unclassified item. This order has been set aside by the first appellate authority without making any distinction about the rate of tax on aluminum wire rod and dross. This order has been set aside by the first appellate authority without making any distinction about the rate of tax on aluminum wire rod and dross. The finding of the assessing Officer on the question of dross has not been set aside by the first appellate authority, although in the reassessment order it was taxed as unclassified item. The first appellate authority and the Tribunal were not correct in setting aside the entire reassessment order without deciding the question of rate of tax of aluminum dross. Be that as it may, in view of the aforesaid discussion it has been found that the first appellate authority and the Tribunal incorrectly interpreted the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindalco, their orders are being hereby set aside and the reassessment order is restored back. ( 12 ) IN the result, both the revisions are hereby allowed, but no order as to costs. . .