RAJES KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) PRESENT revision under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 27. 02 1098 for the assessment year 1991-92. ( 2 ) DEALER/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "dealer") was a manufacturer engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of refined edible oil. Dealer unit was a new unit and accordingly, dealer was holding eligible certificate under Section 4-A of the Act. Dealer had also been issued recognition certificate under Section 4-B of the Act on 01. 08. 1990 w. e. f. 26. 02. 1990 permitting the dealer to purchase the goods mentioned at Sl. No. 1 to 13 of the list annexed alongwith certificate at concessional rate. It appears that the aforesaid recognition certificate issued in Form-19 was amended w. e. f. 06. 03. 1992 and items mentioned at Sl. No. 19 and 11 of the list have been deleted and full exemption has been allowed w. e. f. 06. 03. 1992 Recognition certificate is annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit, filed by the dealer. Assessing authority found that during the year under consideration, dealer had purchased chemical for Rs. 60,00,756/- and machinery parts for Rs. 1,44,429. 56p. against Form 3b. It was also found that the dealer had issued Form 3b for availing full exemption while the dealer was entitled for partial exemption under Clause (5) of notification No. ST-II-4519/x-7 (19)/87-U. P. Act-XV/48-Order-87, dated 29. 08. 1987 as per the recognition certificate. Assessing authority accordingly, levied the penalty under Section 15-A (1) (1) of the act for furnishing of false certificate. Dealer filed appeal before Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Trade Tax. which was dismissed. Dealer further filed appeal before the Tribunal. which has been allowed by the impugned order. Tribunal has observed that in the recognition certificate dealer had been held entitled for full exemption for the purchases of chemical and machinery parts and accordingly. Form 3b for full exemption was issued for making the purchases. Tribunal further held that details of the purchases and the use of Form 3b were submitted before the assessing authority and assessing authority has not raised any objection, therefore, declaration form issued for full exemption can to be said to be false. ( 3 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Tribunal further held that details of the purchases and the use of Form 3b were submitted before the assessing authority and assessing authority has not raised any objection, therefore, declaration form issued for full exemption can to be said to be false. ( 3 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. ( 4 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly held that recognition certificate was issued authorising the dealer to purchase chemical and machinery parts availing the full exemption. He has referred the recognition certificate issued in Form-19, which has been filed as annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit to show that during the year under consideration, dealer was entitled for partial exemption only and the full exemption was allowed w. e. f. 06. 03. 1992. He further submitted that as per Clause (5) of the aforesaid notification dated 29. 08. 1987 dealer was entitled for partial exemption only and, therefore, form 3b issued by the dealer for availing the benefit of full exemption was false. He submitted that the view of the tribunal to the contrary is absolutely wrong and liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel for the dealer has not disputed this fact that as per recognition certificate upto 05. 03. 1992 dealer was entitled to avail the partial exemption only and not full exemption. He, however, submitted that the perusal of the order of appellate authority shows that the entire purchases in the year has been taken while the penalty should not be levied for the purchases after 06. 03. 1992. ( 5 ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties. I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. ( 6 ) IN my view, order of the Tribunal is not sustainable in view of the fact that Tribunal has wrongly held that the dealer was issued recognition certificate for availing the benefit of full exemption on the purchases of chemical and machinery parts. Perusal of the recognition certificate in Form-19 shows that the dealer was issued recognition certificate for partial exemption only. Full exemption has been allowed w. e. f. 06. 03. 1992 and, therefore, dealer was not entitled to issue Form 3b for full exemption in respect of the purchases made prior to 06. 03. 1992. Dealer was also entitled for the partial exemption under Clause (5) of the aforesaid notification dated 29. 08. Full exemption has been allowed w. e. f. 06. 03. 1992 and, therefore, dealer was not entitled to issue Form 3b for full exemption in respect of the purchases made prior to 06. 03. 1992. Dealer was also entitled for the partial exemption under Clause (5) of the aforesaid notification dated 29. 08. 1987 Therefore, the purchases made prior to 06. 03. 1992 and Form 3b issued in respect thereof were false and wrong and thus, the dealer was liable for penalty under section 15-A (1) (1) of the Act. However, it is not clear from the order of the assessing authority that the purchases made only upto the period 05. 03. 1992 was taken. Assessing authority had levied the penalty twice to the amount of tax, the benefit of which had been availed in excess. Perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that Tribunal has not applied its mind on the quantum of the penalty. Therefore, in my opinion, matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal on two points, 1) whether the amount of purchase of chemical and machinery parts taken by the assessing authority relates to the period upto 05. 03. 1992 or for the entire period. If it is for the entire period, then the purchases for the period after 06. 03. 1992 has to be excluded. Tribunal is further directed to re-adjudicate the quantum of the penalty. ( 7 ) IN the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made above. . .