JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar J. - Present revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated April 29, 1995 for the assessment year 1985-86, by which Tribunal has set aside the order passed under section 3-B of the Act. Perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "the dealer") was issued recognition certificate for the manufacture of cast iron castings. It appears that the dealer had purchased pig iron and by the process of castings it manufactured the item called "harrows" and claimed exemption on the sale of such item as agricultural implement. The assessing authority passed the order under section 3-B of the Act on the ground that pig iron purchased against form III-B had been used in the manufacturing of Harrows, an agricultural implement, exempted from tax. In this view of the matter, assessing authority held that the declaration form issued was wrong and false. First appeal filed by the dealer was allowed in part. Tribunal by the impugned order set aside the order passed under section 3-B of the Act. Tribunal held that the dealer was issued recognition certificate for the manufacturing of cast iron castings and the pig iron, which was purchased against form III-B was also used in the manufacturing of cast iron castings and therefore, there was no violation of section 4-B of the Act, inasmuch as declaration form, issued for making the purchases of pig iron, was not false or wrong. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that cast iron castings which dealer manufactured was treated as agricultural implement and the exemption on such item was claimed and in respect of the such manufactured item, dealer was not entitled for the benefit of concessional rate of tax under section 4-B of the Act and thus, the declaration form issued for making the purchases was wrong and false. Learned counsel for the dealer relied upon the order of the Tribunal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the dealer was issued recognition certificate for the manufacturing of cast iron castings. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the dealer was issued recognition certificate for the manufacturing of cast iron castings. It has also held that pig iron, which was purchased against form III-B was also used in the manufacturing of cast iron castings. In view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal which could not be assailed by the learned Standing Counsel, declaration form issued by the dealer cannot be said to be false or wrong. Merely because the item, which is cast iron castings, is claimed to be agricultural implement and the exemption has been allowed, it cannot be said that the goods have been manufactured in violation of the recognition certificate and declaration certificate issued for making the purchases of pig iron, used in the manufacturing of product for which recognition certificate was issued, cannot be said to be false or wrong. In the result, revision fails and is accordingly/dismissed.