JUDGMENT AJAY RASTOGI J. - Instant revision petitions have been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tax Board dated October 29, 2004 whereby the tax and interest levied upon the assessee have been set aside. The controversy raised in both the revision petition is covered by the judgment of this court in Nav Bharat Rice & General Mills v. Commercial Taxes Officer [2000] 120 STC 593. That the counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the controversy raised in the present petitions was considered by this court in Nav Bharat Rice & General Mills v. Commercial Taxes Officer [2000] 120 STC 593, but submits that while examining the controversy, the relevant Notification No. F. 4(67)FD/Gr.IV/76-24, dated September 8, 1976 was rescinded by the subsequent Notification No. F. 4(5)FD/Gr. IV/88-20 dated March 8, 1988 (annexure 6) in exercise of powers conferred under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. But, this fact was not brought to the notice by either of the party when this controversy was considered and examined by this court in Nav Bharat Rice & General Mills v. Commercial Taxes Officer [2000] 120 STC 593. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the controversy, which was considered and examined, is in relation to department's Notification No. F. 4(67)FD/Gr. IV/76-25, dated September 8, 1976. Pursuant to which, the exemption has been granted on payment of tax and the same remained in force for the assessment year 1996-97 assessed by the assessing authority impugned in the present petitions. Counsel for the respondent has further brought to my notice that the amendment has been made in the above referred Notification No. F. 4(67)FD/Gr. IV/76-25, dated September 8, 1976. In support thereof, counsel for the respondent submits that even if Notification No. F. 4(67)FD/Gr. IV/76-24, dated September 8, 1976 stood rescinded, it will not make any effect with respect to the controversy which was considered by this court. I find substance in the submission made by the counsel for the respondent and in the judgment of the Tax Board Notification No. F. 4(67)FD/Gr. IV/76-25, dated September 8, 1976 has been taken note of and case of the present assessee is also covered under the said notification. I find substance in the submission made by the counsel for the respondent and in the judgment of the Tax Board Notification No. F. 4(67)FD/Gr. IV/76-25, dated September 8, 1976 has been taken note of and case of the present assessee is also covered under the said notification. In my considered opinion, the present matters are covered by the judgment in Nav Bharat Rice & General Mills v. Commercial Taxes Officer [2000] 120 STC 593 (Raj) and the factual statement made by the counsel for the Revenue does not hold good. Consequently, both the revision petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.