JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna, J. - Heard the learned standing counsel for the Department. Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the dealer - opposite party and has also filed a counter-affidavit. The controversy involved in the present revision is "as to whether the goods, namely, 'makka poha' were rightly seized and security for releasing the goods was rightly demanded by the Department ?" The contention of the Department is that the said commodity is unclassified item and is taxable at the rate of two per cent. The contention of the dealer - opposite party, on the other hand, is that the said commodity is an exempted item as it is nothing but "kachri". It is also not in dispute that the dealer - opposite party is a registered dealer. On the above facts, I have held in Commercial Tax Revision No. 830 of 2008, Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Purwar Sales Corporation, 50/72, Naughara, Kanpur, decided on July 9, 2008 ([2009] 23 VST 49 (All)), that the goods cannot be seized and security for releasing the goods can be demanded. The question as to whether the goods in question is taxable as "kachri" or unclassified item shall be gone into in the assessment proceeding. The relevant portion from the said judgment is reproduced below : "The only ground for seizing the goods - makka poha (maize flakes) is that it is not a kachri but 'namkeen' which was taxable at the rate of four per cent and now taxable as an unclassified item at the rate of 12.5 per cent., the value of the goods has been estimated at Rs. 70,000 and cash security to the tune of Rs. 26,250 (three times of tax) has been demanded. The Tribunal has proceeded to decide the appeal on the footing that question of taxability will be gone into by the assessing authority in the assessment proceeding and the present is not a stage to adjudicate about its taxability. It has been found and it is not disputed the authorities below as well as by the learned standing counsel that the dealer - opposite party is a registered dealer. It is also not in dispute that the dealer - opposite party has not made any wrong declaration that the goods in question are not maize flakes. It has been found and it is not disputed the authorities below as well as by the learned standing counsel that the dealer - opposite party is a registered dealer. It is also not in dispute that the dealer - opposite party has not made any wrong declaration that the goods in question are not maize flakes. The question whether 'maize flake' is 'kachri' and, therefore, exempt or is unclassified item shall obviously be gone into by the assessing authority while framing the assessment order. The Tribunal, to safeguard the interest of the Department, has provided in its order that sample of the goods in question be preserved for the purposes of final assessment. The Tribunal has refrained itself, and rightly so, from making any comment about the taxability of the goods in question. The Tribunal has rightly observed that a dispute about the rate of tax can be properly adjudicated in a regular assessment proceeding and not in ancillary or incidental proceeding such as under section 48(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act. There appears to be no legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal on this score. By way of clarification it is added that release of the goods and setting aside of the seizure order will not in any manner be construed as an order holding that 'maize flakes' is a non-taxable item and is included in 'kachri'. The said point shall be open for adjudication by the authority concerned in appropriate proceeding." In the light of the aforesaid observation, the present revision is dismissed and it is provided that dismissal of the revision will not in any manner be construed as an order holding that "maize flake" is a non-taxable item and is included in "kachri". The said point shall be open for adjudication by the authority concerned in appropriate proceeding. No order as to costs.