JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - These three revisions are directed against a common order dated August 7, 1996 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Kanpur in three connected Second Appeal Nos. 755 of 1993 for the assessment year 1987-88, 754 of 1993 for the assessment year 1988-89 and 756 of 1993 for the assessment year 1989-90 whereby and whereunder the Tribunal has dismissed all the three second appeals preferred by the dealer who is applicant in these revisions. The applicant is a registered dealer under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and was granted licence for sale of levy cement under the provisions of the U.P. Cement Control Order, 1972. The cement imported by him from outside the State of U.P. was taxable at the point of sale in the three relevant assessment years, i.e., 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90. All the three authorities below have rejected the account books of the dealer and have framed best judgment assessment order. Heard Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the Department. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the cement was a controlled commodity at the relevant point of time and it was not possible for the dealer to sell the cement outside the books of account. He, therefore, submits that the account books should have been accepted by the Department. In contra, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the applicant could not produce relevant account books for verification before the authority concerned and, therefore, they were justified to frame best judgment assessment order. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that a licensee under the U.P. Cement Control Order is required to maintain certain statutory records. It is also not in dispute that in spite of sufficient opportunity granted to the dealer, he could not produce those records for verification. In the assessment year 1987-88, an ex parte assessment order was passed which was challenged in appeal. Before the appellate authority it was stated by the dealer that he will file original stock register duly verified by the district supply officer before the assessing authority, if another opportunity is afforded to him. The said submission of the dealer was accepted by the appellate authority. Before the appellate authority it was stated by the dealer that he will file original stock register duly verified by the district supply officer before the assessing authority, if another opportunity is afforded to him. The said submission of the dealer was accepted by the appellate authority. But strangely enough, after remand, the dealer - applicant failed to produce the stock register. In response to the show-cause notice issued by the assessing authority, a stand was taken that the stock register has been lost. Instead of original, a duplicate stock register was sought to be produced. The authority below, however, refused to place any reliance on the duplicate stock register and in my view, rightly as the dealer could not explain as to how the duplicate stock register was got prepared. Besides the above, other documents, such as, purchase vouchers, etc., were not produced before the authority below. In view of the fact that the applicant has failed to produce the relevant records which were required to be maintained by him under the U.P. Cement Control Order, the contention that the cement was a controlled commodity in the relevant assessment years and as such, it was not possible for the dealer to sell the cement outside of accounts is, therefore, rejected. The authorities below have examined the matter in great detail and have recorded a finding that the dealer - applicant has neither produced the original stock register nor has produced the purchase vouchers or the permit, etc. Non-production of these documents entails rejection of the account books and, therefore, there is no error in the order of the Tribunal in not accepting the account books. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are essentially findings of fact based on appreciation of material on record. The apex court in Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. v. Mohan Brickfield [2006] 148 STC 638; [2007] 1 UPTC 1 and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kumaon Tractors & Motors [2002] 9 SCC 379 has held that this court possesses limited jurisdiction under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The jurisdiction is limited to the question of law. In view of the above discussions, I find no merit in the revision. The revision is dismissed, but no order as to costs.