JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - The present revision arises out of the proceedings initiated against the applicant under section 4A(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for cancellation of the eligibility certificate on the ground of its misuse. In brief the relevant facts may be noted. The applicant, a registered partnership firm, applied for grant of "eligibility certificate" in pursuance of Notification No. 7558 dated December 26, 1985 on the ground that it has established a new industrial unit for the manufacture of PVC pipe at Delhi Road, Moradabad. The exemption from payment of tax for a period of four years from July 16, 1987 the date of first sale, to July 15, 1991 was granted. Subsequent thereto, the Department came in possession of certain material to show that the applicant is not actually manufacturing any goods, but is a trader and as such, is Unauthorisedly utilising the facility of total exemption from tax. The Commissioner of Trade Tax in exercise of powers conferred on it under section 4A(3) of the Act issued a show-cause notice. The applicant failed to appear in spite of the notice before the Commissioner. The eligibility certificate was cancelled ex parte. The said order was challenged in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by the order dated September 2, 1996 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Commissioner and restored back the matter to the Commissioner to hear the dealer - applicant before taking a decision with respect to cancellation of eligibility certificate. Again a detailed show-cause notice was issued by the Commissioner asking the dealer to give reply and participate in the proceedings. In the show-cause notice it is mentioned that on inquiry made by the Trade Tax Officer (SIB), Head Quarter, Lucknow, it has been found that the applicant has shown purchases of raw material from Delhi party but on inquiry it has been found that such purchases are bogus, such selling dealers do not exist at all. Similarly, the sales made by the applicant to the dealer at Agra on verification have been found to be false and fictitious. The bills issued by the dealer are unnumbered and hand-written and not printed ones. On these basis, an inference was drawn that the dealer - applicant is not manufacturing any goods, but is a trader. No reply was filed to the said show-cause notice. The bills issued by the dealer are unnumbered and hand-written and not printed ones. On these basis, an inference was drawn that the dealer - applicant is not manufacturing any goods, but is a trader. No reply was filed to the said show-cause notice. After remand by the Tribunal, July 19, 1997 was the date fixed for appearance before the Commissioner but the applicant failed to appear on that date and the matter was adjourned thereafter on number of dates. Ultimately, March 30, 1998 was the last date fixed on the application filed by the applicant - dealer on March 5, 1998. Even on that date he failed to appear and the Commissioner, therefore, by the order dated March 31, 1998 cancelled the eligibility certificate of the applicant. The above order was again challenged before the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow in second appeal No. 56 of 1998 which came up for consideration before a three - member Bench. This time the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal on the ground that no error was committed by the Commissioner in refusing to adjourn the case. The Tribunal has also observed that the Commissioner has given the facts in detail, but no attempt was made before it by the dealer - applicant to controvert those facts with the help of account books or otherwise. The said order of the Tribunal is under challenge in the present revision. Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Piyush Agrawal, Advocate, in support of the revision submits two points. Firstly, no proper opportunity was given to the dealer to prove its case before the authority concerned. Secondly, the purchases were verified by the Department before issuance of the eligibility certificate and as such, there was no justification to cancel the eligibility certificate subsequently. The learned Standing Counsel for the Department, on the other hand, supports the impugned order. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is admitted to the dealer - applicant that on earlier occasion also an ex parte order cancelling the eligibility certificate was passed by the Commissioner. The order was set aside by the Tribunal with a view to afford another opportunity of hearing to the applicant. It is admitted to the dealer - applicant that on earlier occasion also an ex parte order cancelling the eligibility certificate was passed by the Commissioner. The order was set aside by the Tribunal with a view to afford another opportunity of hearing to the applicant. It appears that the leniency shown by the Tribunal by restoring back the matter to the Commissioner and affording opportunity of hearing was not understood by the dealer in its right perspective. As has been noticed by the Commissioner in its order, there was no improvement in the conduct and behaviour of the applicant. The proceeding before the Commissioner remained pending for a period over one year and dates after dates were fixed but either the dealer failed to appear or he sought the adjournment. A party of the dealer to the proceeding is writ large. The conduct of the dealer shows that he was not at all interested to contest the proceedings on the merits. Rather, he was interested to prolong the proceedings for the reasons best Known to him. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and non-cooperating attitude of the dealer - applicant, I find no illegality or perversity in either of the two orders of the authorities below rejecting the adjournment application and deciding the matter ex parte against the applicant. The Tribunal is right in its observation that the allegation that on the date the counsel of the dealer was busy in other time barring cases has not been substantiated by giving particulars, if any, of such cases. The copy of the adjournment application was not produced before the Tribunal and also not before this court. So far as second question is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly observed that the order of the Commissioner cancelling eligibility certificate is based on facts. No attempt was made by the dealer even before the Tribunal to contradict those facts with the help of account books or any other document. A bare perusal of the order of the Commissioner would show that it has taken pains to give details to record specific instances to show that the applicant has not made any purchases from Delhi party. Notices issued to the alleged sellers of Delhi have been returned with the endorsement that no such dealer exists on the spot. A bare perusal of the order of the Commissioner would show that it has taken pains to give details to record specific instances to show that the applicant has not made any purchases from Delhi party. Notices issued to the alleged sellers of Delhi have been returned with the endorsement that no such dealer exists on the spot. The burden was obviously on the applicant to establish by cogent evidence that he has made purchases from such selling party. With regard to the alleged sales also, an elaborate inquiry was conducted by the Department. In the said inquiry it was found that most of the sales made by the dealer - applicant are not verifiable. On these facts, it is but obvious that the Department was justified to draw an inference that the dealer is misusing or abusing the eligibility certificate granted to it. At no stage, any attempt was made by the dealer - applicant to contradict the facts as collected by the Department during the course of inquiry. The conduct of the dealer - applicant is blameworthy and he should thank himself as he himself volunteered not to participate in the proceeding before the Commissioner. From the order sheet dated July 11, 2006 it appears that the matter was taken up by the court and the case was adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the assessee to enable him, to bring on record certain facts and documents for the purpose of establishing the existence of the firm from whom the purchases were made and reflected in the account books. But, no document or material was filed, though time was granted by the order dated July 11, 2006. The revision was argued finally without asking for any further time. This also negates the case of the dealer - applicant. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in the revision. No question of law is involved therein. The order of the Tribunal is on terra firma. The revision is dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000.