JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - The present revisions are directed against the order dated November 27, 1999 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Varanasi, in Second Appeal No. 175 of 1996 for the assessment year 1990-91 and in Second Appeal No. 657 of 1996 for the assessment year 1991-92. Raising a short controversy the present revisions have been filed by the Department. The dealer - opposite party carries on the business of manufacture and sale of S.S.F. coal (smokeless coal) and tar-coal. In the assessment proceedings the dealer did not accept any tax liability on the sale of undersized coal. The case set up by the dealer was that it is a new unit and eligibility certificate has been granted to it under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The under-sized coal is nothing but by-product in the manufacture of S.S.F. coal and as such the same is also exempted. The said plea of the dealer did not find favour with the assessing officer or with the first appellate authority. The Tribunal by the order under revision has accepted the claim of the dealer - opposite party. In the memo of revision the following questions of law have been sought to be raised. "(a) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified to hold that under-sized coal is waste product or by-product exempt from tax despite the under-sized coal was shorted out before the process of manufacturing which is clear from survey dated August 19, 1992 ? (b) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified to accept the account books of the dealer despite from the facts found on the survey dated November 4, 1989 and road checking dated August 28, 1993 it is clear that the dealer has sold coal without manufacturing giving it the name of SSF to avoid the tax liability ?" So far as the question (b) is concerned, it is concluded by finding of fact and no serious arguments were advanced by the learned standing counsel in respect thereof. So far as question (a) is concerned, learned standing counsel submits that under-sized coal is not a waste product or by-product. He submits that under-sized coal is shorted out before start of the manufacturing process of SSF coal. So far as question (a) is concerned, learned standing counsel submits that under-sized coal is not a waste product or by-product. He submits that under-sized coal is shorted out before start of the manufacturing process of SSF coal. Sri B. J. Agarwal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of dealer - opposite party submits that under-sized coal is nothing but a waste product or by-product in the manufacture of SSF coal. The Tribunal while deciding the appeal has placed reliance upon its earlier order passed in the case of dealer for the earlier assessment years. In the earlier order, the Tribunal has noticed the manufacturing process of SSF coal. It has noted that in the manufacture of SSF coal four stages are involved. The coal as such is put on holding conveyor belt. The second process is crushing of the coal. In the third process the coal filtered and screening. After screening and processing, the under-sized coal and broken coal are separated. The question of taxability of this coals involved in this revision. In view of the process of manufacture of SSF coal, as noticed by the Tribunal in its order, the waste under-sized coal or crush coal is nothing but by-product in the manufacture of SSF coal. The said finding recorded by the Tribunal is essentially a finding of fact and based on material. The learned standing counsel could not place any material before this court to take a different view of the matter. The manufacturing process of SSF coal has also not been challenged or disputed in this revision. In view of the above, the orders of the Tribunal are perfectly justified and they do not suffer from any error of law. There is no merit in the revisions. The revisions are dismissed. No order as to costs.