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 July 15, 2000. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant established a new unit for the manufacturing of cement. The applicant was registered both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 under the Factories Act and also registered with the Director of Small Scale Industries. First sale was made on September 20, 1995. The applicant moved an application under section 4A of the Act for the exemption under the Notification No. TT-II-780/XI-9(226)/94-U.P. Act-15/48-Order-95, dated March 31, 1995 and TT-781/XI-9(226)/94-Act-74/56-Order-95, dated March 31, 1995 for the period of eight years on 175 per cent of the capital investment. The exemption was denied by the Divisional Level Committee on the ground that as per the requirement of section 4(1) under the Cement Control Order, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "Control Order") the manufacturer of the cement was required to obtain licence for use of standard mark and shall not produce the cement till it obtains the standard mark. It appears that the applicant applied for ISI mark with the Bureau on January 27, 1997. Since the licence for the use of standard mark from the Bureau could not be obtained on the date of the first sale, the exemption under section 4A of the Act was denied. Being aggrieved by the order of Divisional Level Committee the applicant filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal in part. The Tribunal held that the applicant is entitled for the exemption from the date of the application moved for obtaining the licence for the use of standard mark with the Bureau and directed the Divisional Level Committee to grant the eligibility certificate from such date. Being aggrieved by the order, present revision has been filed. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel. Being aggrieved by the order, present revision has been filed. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no requirement under section 4A of the Act and the notification issued thereunder as a condition precedent for grant of exemption to obtain the licence for use of standard mark from the Bureau and, therefore, in the absence of any licence as required under the control order the exemption cannot be denied. He submitted that under the notification if a unit is registered permanently or otherwise under any provisions of the Act, such unit is eligible for the exemption under section 4A of the Act. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of this court in the case of C.D. Lamps & Tube Industries, Moradabad v. State of U.P. reported in [1993] UPTC 875, in which it has been held that under section 4A of the Act there is no requirement for obtaining the ISI mark. He further relied on the decision of this court in the case of Aakash Cement Pvt. Ltd. Aligarh v. Commissioner of Trade Tax reported in [2000] UPTC 298. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that cement is such a product which cannot be sold unless it bears ISI mark obtained from the Bureau. He submitted that in case if manufacturing cannot be allowed without obtaining the ISI mark, it will be against the public interest to allow exemption in the absence of ISI mark as required under section 4(1) of the control order. Thus, the exemption has been rightly denied. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below and have given my anxious consideration to the rival submission of the parties. In the case of State Level Committee v. Morgardshammar India Ltd. reported in [1996] 101 STC 1 (SC); [1996] UPTC 213, the apex court held that the provision of section 4A of the Act which relates to the exemption is to be strictly interpreted and the exemption is to be considered within the ambit of the provision. In the case of State Level Committee v. Morgardshammar India Ltd. reported in [1996] 101 STC 1 (SC); [1996] UPTC 213, the apex court held that the provision of section 4A of the Act which relates to the exemption is to be strictly interpreted and the exemption is to be considered within the ambit of the provision. In the case of C.D. Lamps & Tube Industries, Moradabad v. State of U.P. [1993] UPTC 875 and Aakash Cement Pvt. Ltd. Aligarh v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [2000] UPTC 298 it has been held by this court that merely because a product did not bear ISI mark, the exemption under section 4A of the Act can not be refused. There is no condition that under section 4A of the Act or under the notifications issued thereunder which requires obtaining of ISI mark from the Bureau as required under section 4(1) of the control order as condition precedent for grant of exemption under section 4A of the Act. For the purpose of exemption under section 4A of the Act, Divisional Level Committee should consider the claim only within the ambit of the requirement and the condition contemplated under section 4A of the Act and the notification issued thereunder. For making the production and sale without obtaining the licence from the Bureau for the use of the standard mark, it may amount to violation of the control order and the necessary action may be taken against the applicant under the control order but in the absence of any condition under section 4A of the Act and the notifications issued thereunder, the exemption under section 4A of the Act cannot be denied. The Divisional Level Committee as well as the Tribunal have committed an error of law in refusing the exemption under section 4A of the Act on the ground that the unit could not obtain the licence for the use of standard mark from the Bureau as required under section 4(1) of the Cement Control Order, 1995. In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the Divisional Level Committee is directed to issue the eligibility certificate and grant the exemption from the date of first sale.