JUDGMENT MS. BHARATI SAPRU, J. - Heard learned Standing Counsel for the revisionist - State and Shri Piyush Agarwal for the respondent - assessee. This revision has been filed at the instance of the State against an order of the Tribunal dated September 9, 2007 by which the Tribunal has accepted the account books of the assessee and has also held that the plastic boxes sold by the dealer are taxable at the rate of 2.5 per cent as jewellery boxes while giving the benefit of the provisions of section 3AB of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. Two questions have been referred to in the present revision. (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified to hold that the plastic boxes sold by the dealer are taxable at the rate of 2.5 per cent as jewellery boxes ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified to accept the account books of the dealer despite the adverse material found at the time of survey on July 24, 1998 indicating otherwise ? The facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in production of the plastic goods such as boxes. For the assessment year 1998-99, the dealer has declared a total sale of Rs. 80,298 and admitted no tax liability by stating that his production was below the taxable limit. It was the contention of the dealer that he did not have a factory and was producing plastic boxes on job-work basis. A survey was conducted on July 24, 1998 where three workers were found manufacturing plastic boxes on a moulding machine. The dealer admitted that it was paying the alleged job-workers Rs. 1,500 p.m., but did not declare any expenses for electricity, wages, etc. The assessing authority assessed the material on record, rejected the account books of the dealer and assessed him to tax to the extent of Rs. 28,000 on a turnover of Rs. 2,80,000 at the rate of 10 per cent by passing the order dated February 20, 2001. 1,500 p.m., but did not declare any expenses for electricity, wages, etc. The assessing authority assessed the material on record, rejected the account books of the dealer and assessed him to tax to the extent of Rs. 28,000 on a turnover of Rs. 2,80,000 at the rate of 10 per cent by passing the order dated February 20, 2001. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing authority, the dealer preferred the first appeal under section 9 of the Act who partly allowed the appeal of the dealer by confirming the rejection of the account books but reduced the tax to 15 per cent. Being further aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority the dealer as well as the Revenue Board preferred second appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal which by its order dated September 9, 2002 allowed the appeal filed by the dealer but dismissed the appeal filed by the revisionist. The Tribunal accepted the account books of the assessee and accepted the contention of the dealer. The plastic boxes which were being manufactured by him were jewellery boxes and therefore should be taxed at the rate of 2.5 per cent as jewellery boxes. That is to say, the Tribunal sought to grant the benefit to the provisions of section 3AB of the Act to the assessee as well as the benefit of the rate applicable to jewellery as ornaments under the Notifications TT-2-3403 dated October 1, 1994 and T.I.F.-2-891/dated March 31, 1998 and benefit which was given by the Tribunal under the aforesaid notification was under the heading "ornaments made of gold and silver" which were being taxed at 4 per cent under the said notification which was subsequently modified and brought down to 2.5 per cent by the amendment dated March 31, 1998 at the relevant time. The Tribunal also sought to give the benefit of the provisions of section 3AB of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. I have heard both the sides at length and perused the record as well as the relevant notifications with regard to the ornaments under section 3AB of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. Insofar as the relevant notifications are concerned the entry is only with regard to ornaments made of gold and silver and does not extend to packing material. I have heard both the sides at length and perused the record as well as the relevant notifications with regard to the ornaments under section 3AB of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. Insofar as the relevant notifications are concerned the entry is only with regard to ornaments made of gold and silver and does not extend to packing material. The provisions of section 3AB are applicable only in cases where goods are sold along with the packing material. In the present case, there is no evidence to establish that the so-called jewellery boxes which were actually plastic boxes were being sold along with the jewellery. That could only have been so if the jeweller who was selling ornaments was selling the jewellery boxes along with the ornaments. In the absence of any evidence to establish this fact that the packing material, i.e., the alleged jewellery boxes were being sold with the jewellery, it was not justified on the part of the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in this case the benefit of section 3AB could have been given to the assessee. Therefore, the conclusion of the Tribunal on both counts is bad and not justified. There is no finding whatsoever on record that the plastic boxes were the packing material which was being sold along with the jewellery. I therefore, hold that the order of the Tribunal is bad and not justified. Both the questions are thus answered in favour of the revisionist and against the assessee. This revision is allowed in favour of the State. There shall be no order as to Costs.