PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) IN both the revisions the following common point of law has been raised by the department: "whet her the, Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to exempt self manufactured cattle feed from payment of tax despite the fact that the aforesaid commodity falls under the category of an unclassified item and as such taxable @ 8%?" ( 2 ) THE dispute relates to the assessment year 1985-86 and 1986-87. The assessee carried on the business of manufacture and sale of oil cakes, cotton seeds, cattle fodder etc. The acceptance of the disclosed turnover is not in dispute. The Assessing Authority rejected the claim of exemption on the sale of cattle fodder. Ultimately the matter reached to the Tribunal. The Tribunal in view of the following relevant entry in notification No. 3714 dated 5. 6. 1985, which was issued under section 4 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act granted exemption on the sale of cattle fodder: "cattle fodder including green fodder, chooni, Bhusi, Chhilka, Choker, Javi (properly known as ghurjaee) and Gowar, but not including Khali (oil cake), rice polish, rice bran or rice husk. " ( 3 ) ON interpretation of the aforesaid entry, the Tribunal concluded that the cattle fodder sold by the dealer opp. Party is an exempted item. The constituent of cattle fodder is Chooni, Gur mogrey. On this basis the Tribunal treated the commodity in question as cattle fodder and granted. exemption. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order the present revision has been filed. ( 4 ) HEARD the counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned standing counsel submitted that the Tribunal wrongly granted the exemption and the commodity in question should be taxed as unclassified item. Reliance has been placed by him upon a judgment of this court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. Lucknow v. Cattle food plant Meerut (2001) 34 STR 529. On the other hand the learned counsel for the dealer opp. party has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. s/s. Paras ram Lakshi Ram (2005)41 STR 42. ( 5 ) I have perused the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has proceeded in the matter for both the assessment years that the constituents of the goods which is claimed as cattle fodder by the dealer opp. ( 5 ) I have perused the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has proceeded in the matter for both the assessment years that the constituents of the goods which is claimed as cattle fodder by the dealer opp. party are Chooni, Gur and Mogrey. By mixing all these things Pashuchara is got prepared by the dealer opp. party. ( 6 ) THE Assessing Authority in the assessment order for the assessment year 1986-87 examined the relevant ledger of Pashu Ahara and it has been found that Pashu Ahar has been prepared with the help of Deoiled rice bran and Khal (oil cake ). The mixture of these two items has been treated by the, dealer opp. party as Pashu Ahar. The Assessing Authority did not accept the claim of the dealer opp. party that the- products, thus, manufactured by the dealer opp. party with the mixture of Deoiled rice bran and Khal. He was of the view that the cattle fodder under the relevant entry has been used in its conventional form which includes the green fodder, Chooni, bhusi, Chhilka, Choker, Javi and Gowar. The basis of the claim before the Assessing Authority was that the Pashu Ahar is not liable to be taxed in as much as the dealer has manufactured it with the help of tax paid goods. But no evidence with regard to the payment of tax on deoiled rice bran or Khal could be produced before the Assessing Authority. On this basis the claim of exemption of Pashu Ahar was denied. So far as the STR No. 119 of 1995 relating to the assessment year 1985-86 is concerned find that the Assessing Authority did not grant the exemption on the sale of Pashu Ahar on the ground that the constituents of Pashu Ahar in this year were not tax paid goods. The constituents of Pashu Ahar as noticed in the assessment order are Gur, Binaula etc. The entry of cattle fodder does not exclude these items from cattle fodder. Therefore, the Pashu Ahar, thus, manufactured by the dealer opp. party in the relevant assessment year is cattle fodder within the meaning of the Notification No. 3714 dated 5. 6. 1985. The tribunal, therefore, rightly held that the Pashu Ahar is exempted item and is not liable to be taxed in the assessment year 1985-86. Therefore, the Pashu Ahar, thus, manufactured by the dealer opp. party in the relevant assessment year is cattle fodder within the meaning of the Notification No. 3714 dated 5. 6. 1985. The tribunal, therefore, rightly held that the Pashu Ahar is exempted item and is not liable to be taxed in the assessment year 1985-86. ( 7 ) THE Tribunal has not set aside the finding of the Assessing Authority for the assessment year 1986-87 that the constituents of the Pashu Ahar manufactured by the dealer opp. party are deoiled rice bran and Khal. It proceeded in the matter that the unclassified definition of cattle fodder is wide enough to cover all such things which can be fed to an animal. In my view the tribunal proceeded in the matter with a wrong angle. It has lost the sight of the fact that the constituent of Pashu Ahar in the present case are deoiled rice bran and oil cake. Both these items have been expressly excluded in the aforesaid entry relating to the cattle fodder. The things boils down to this that the constituent of Pashu Ahar in the present case are such items which are expressly excluded from the entry of the cattle fodder. The plain and unambiguous language of the entry expressly excludes deoiled rice bran and Khali. In view of the expressed exclusion of these two items it is difficult to hold that the constituent of the Pashu Ahar manufactured by the dealer opp. party is cattle fodder and is therefore, an exempted item under the Notification No. 3714. The learned counsel for the dealer opp. party has placed reliance upon the case of the commissioner of Trade Tax v. Paras Ram Lakshi Runt, Muzaffarnagar. In that case, the learned Judge has distinguished the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Cattle Food Plant (2001) 34 STR 529. The distinction pointed towards the end of para 10 in the judgment of Paras ram Lakshi Ram to distinguish the case of M/s. Cattle Food Plant is that in the case of Cattle food Plant rice husk, rice polish and rice bran were the ingredients of mixture, which were specifically excluded from the "cattle Fodder". The said distinction is not available in the case in hand. Therefore, the judgment of S/s. Paras Ram Lakshi Ram relied upon by the learned counsel for the dealer opp. The said distinction is not available in the case in hand. Therefore, the judgment of S/s. Paras Ram Lakshi Ram relied upon by the learned counsel for the dealer opp. party is distinguishable on facts. The facts of the present case are parallel to the facts of the case of S/s. Cattle Food Plant, Meerut (Supra ). ( 8 ) IN the result the revision No. 148 of 1995 is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. The revision No. 119 of 1995 is hereby dismissed. ( 9 ) NO order as to costs. . .