JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - The present revision is directed against the order dated April 24, 2004 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Haldawani in second appeal No. 186 of 1994 relevant to the assessment year 1989-90. The dealer - opposite party carries on the business of manufacturing and selling bricks. For the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 he applied for composition of trade tax liability under section 7D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The said composition was granted by the Department. There is no dispute with regard to the payment of tax on the bricks. The only dispute raised by the Department is with regard to the coal which was purchased by the dealer - opposite party against form XXXI. While framing the assessment order for the assessment year 1989-90 the assessing authority found that the dealer - opposite party was entitled to import the coal to the extent of 400 metric tons in respect of the two assessment years, i.e. 1988-89 and 1989-90. In these two assessment years the dealer - opposite party has imported 803.010 metric tons of coal as against 400 metric tons for which he was authorised. Rejecting the disclosed purchase price of the coal, the best judgement assessment order was passed by the assessing officer on the turnover of 814.210 metric tons of coal at the rate of 690 per metric ton. The said order was challenged before the first appellate authority. It appears from the order of the first appellate authority that the dealer - opposite party agreed that the matter may be settled by mutual agreement with the Department. He agreed that the matter may be examined by Shri R. R. Verma, the assessing officer. On the basis of the said agreement, the first appellate authority reduced the turnover of the coal, as was agreed by the dealer - opposite party, by the order dated March 25, 1994. The dealer - opposite party by filing a second appeal before the Tribunal challenged the order of the first appellate authority and the said appeal has been allowed on the short ground that the assessing officer could frame the assessment only for a period of 12 months commencing from April to March. The dealer - opposite party by filing a second appeal before the Tribunal challenged the order of the first appellate authority and the said appeal has been allowed on the short ground that the assessing officer could frame the assessment only for a period of 12 months commencing from April to March. The order of the Tribunal has been challenged by the Department and in the memo of revision the following questions of law have been framed : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to quash the tax without considering the agreement of compounding scheme ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to quash the tax which was imposed on the basis of the mutually agreed upon by the State and the assessee as indicated by the order of the first appellate authority ?" Heard Shri K. M. Sahai, learned standing counsel. None is present on behalf of the dealer - opposite party. The Department has filed an affidavit of service. The service is held sufficient. The learned standing counsel in support of the revision submits two points. Firstly, he submits that since the order of the first appellate authority was passed on the basis of the agreement arrived at between the dealer - opposite party and the Department, there was no occasion to file a second appeal. Elaborating the argument, he submits that on the facts of the present case, the dealer - opposite party could not be termed as an aggrieved person. Secondly, if the Tribunal was of the view that the appellate authority committed illegality in passing the order for a period of 12 months, the Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter to the first appellate authority instead of deciding it finally. Considered the submission of the learned standing counsel and perused the record. The dealer - opposite party had filed an application dated September 29, 1993, before the assessing officer for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 with the request that his cases relating to the assessment year 1989-90 be finalized as he is heart patient and is prepared to give tax at the rate of four per cent over and above on such quantity of the coal which was imported by him under the compounding scheme. The Tribunal has proceeded to decide the appeal on two counts. The Tribunal has noticed that the assessment order framed from the assessment year 1989-90 does not appear as to what period it relates. There are two periods in the assessment year in question. The first period is April 1, 1989 to September 30, 1989, which relates to the assessment year 1988-89. The second period of the assessment year 1989-90 relates to the October 1, 1989 to March 31, 1990. The compounding scheme was applicable to the period October 1, 1989 to March 31, 1990. The Tribunal observed that in the assessment order it has not been clarified as to for which months it relate. Therefore, it concluded that the assessment order is for 18 months and is contrary to law. Secondly, it has noticed that since the dealer - opposite party after importing the coal has not sold in the same form and condition but consumed it for manufacturing the bricks, therefore, no tax could have been levied thereunder. Having given careful consideration to the argument of the learned standing counsel, I find sufficient force therein. If, the Tribunal was of the view that the assessment order relates to 18 months, it should have been sustained at least for 12 months. The setting aside of the assessment order as a whole cannot be justified. If there was any confusion or doubt, the matter either should have been remanded to the first appellate authority or a remand report should have been called for from the authority concerned. So far as the second ground taken by the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal has overlooked the conditions for allowing the composition application. The benefit of the compounding scheme was extended to the dealer - opposite party on the terms mentioned in the scheme. One of the terms of the scheme provides that the maximum quantity of coal which could be imported by a brick-kiln owner. Obviously if a brick-kiln owner has imported coal over and above the agreed quantity of coal his liability to pay tax is there. In view of the above discussion, the order of the Tribunal setting aside the assessment order cannot be justified. The Tribunal will re-examine the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the dealer and Department as a whole. The revision succeeds and is allowed in part. In view of the above discussion, the order of the Tribunal setting aside the assessment order cannot be justified. The Tribunal will re-examine the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the dealer and Department as a whole. The revision succeeds and is allowed in part. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the assessing authority.