JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - The present revision is directed against the order dated March 31, 1999 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Muzaffarnagar in Second Appeal No. 98 of 1994 relevant to the assessment year 1980-81. It arises out of the proceeding relating to the penalty under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The applicant is a registered dealer under the Sales Tax Act. It was found by the Trade Tax Department that it has imported electric motor, electrical weigh bridge and welding rod and parts of trolley and issued form C to avail of the benefit of concessional rate of Central sales tax. According to the Department the applicant was not authorised to purchase these items as they were not covered under the registration certificate issued to it. After issuing a pre-penalty notice and consideration of the reply filed to the notice, the assessing authority by the order dated September 30, 1993 levied the penalty at Rs. 1,61,175. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged before the first appellate authority and then a second appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The second appeal has been allowed in part by the Tribunal vide its order dated March 31, 1999. The levy of penalty has been sustained, however, the quantum of penalty has been reduced. In the memo of revision the following questions of law have been sought to be raised : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 10A at Rs. 66,32,302 ? 2. Whether the Tribunal is legally justified in confirming the penalty when in the case of the applicant itself for the future year as well as for previous years the penalty has been deleted under the similar circumstances ? 3. Whether in any view of the matter the penalty is legally justified ignoring the fact that the applicant has acted under the bona fide belief without any intent to commit any default ? A supplementary affidavit annexing the registration certificate granted under the Central sales tax has been filed wherein the petitioner has been authorised to purchase the "sugar production machinery and its parts". The Tribunal has proceeded to confirm the levy of the penalty on the ground that indisputably the applicant has purchased the electrical goods worth Rs. 9,52,444.68 and hardware worth Rs. The Tribunal has proceeded to confirm the levy of the penalty on the ground that indisputably the applicant has purchased the electrical goods worth Rs. 9,52,444.68 and hardware worth Rs. 1,52,582.05 from outside the State of U.P. None of these items falls in "sugar production machinery and its parts". The applicant was not authorised to make these purchases at concessional rate of tax by availing of the benefit of issuing form C as these goods by no stretch of imagination can be included in "sugar production machinery and its parts". The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is a semi-Government organization and there is no mala fide intention on the part of the officers to purchase the goods in question Unauthorisedly. The applicant has acted under bona fide belief without any intent to commit any default. It was further submitted that the applicant has been exempted for future year as well as for previous years and the penalty has been deleted under the similar circumstances. Whether the applicant has acted bonafidely or malafidely, is not in issue nor there is any such finding by the authorities below. The validity of the order of the Tribunal is to be examined within the parameters of section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the purchases of hardware and electrical goods do not fall within the ambit of "sugar production machinery and its parts" which in my view is perfectly justified specially when no material to the contrary was placed before me. Not a single argument was advanced by the learned counsel that purchases of these items were justified in any manner. To part it differently, no attempt was made to show that such purchases in any manner are relatable to "sugar production machinery or its parts". No document has been annexed along with the memo of revision or filed otherwise before me to show that the dealer - applicant under the similar circumstances was exonerated from the levy of penalty. All the three authorities below have categorically found that the electric motor, electrical weight bridge and welding rod and parts of trolley are not "sugar production machinery or its parts". The learned counsel for the applicant utterly failed to establish that the said finding of the authorities below is in any manner contrary to the law or unjustified. All the three authorities below have categorically found that the electric motor, electrical weight bridge and welding rod and parts of trolley are not "sugar production machinery or its parts". The learned counsel for the applicant utterly failed to establish that the said finding of the authorities below is in any manner contrary to the law or unjustified. As regards the quantum of penalty is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly reduced the same to Rs. 66,302 which is the difference of the rate of tax on the said purchases in between the tax leviable under the Act and the benefit of the concession availed of by issuing form C by the dealer - applicant. There is no force in the revision, the order of the Tribunal is on terra firma. The revision is dismissed. No order as to costs.