JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna, J. - The present revision has been filed under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as "the Act" against the order dated December 8, 1999 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in two connected second appeal Nos. 93 of 1999 and 94 of 1999 (U.P. and Central). The dispute in the present revision relates to the assessment year 1993-94 (U.P.). The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The dealer - opposite party is carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of calcium carbonate, etc. The dealer - opposite party, before the assessing authority claimed exemption on the purchase of rice husk purchased from unregistered dealer. The said claim was negatived and best judgment assessment order was passed on January 31, 1997. The appeal against the said order has been allowed in part. The appellate authority found that out of total purchase of Rs. 69,50,000, it has purchased paddy husk of Rs. 40,00,000 which shall be exempt and the remaining amount represents the purchase of rice husk on which the tax, treating it to be the first purchase, shall be payable. The appeal was allowed in part. In further appeal, both by the Department and by the assessee, the Tribunal by the order under revision has allowed the appeal in part filed by dealer and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Department. In the memo of revision, the following questions of law have been sought to be raised : (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified in holding that rice husk and paddy husk are different commodities without considering the law laid down by the honourable High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Naveen Traders [1975] 36 STC 440 (All); [1973] UPTC 215 and Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. v. Jiwan Singh, Rikhi Ram [1978] STJ 66 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold paddy husk as an unclassified item despite it has made taxable under Government notification issued in this behalf ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold paddy husk as an unclassified item despite it has made taxable under Government notification issued in this behalf ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to quash the tax on the lease amount received for transfer of right to use plant and machinery without considering the law laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise AIR 1998 SC 1489 ; [1997] 10 JT 82 (SC) ? (iv) Whether, the Tribunal is legally justified to quash the tax assessed on the sale of coal despite the incriminating adverse material available on record indicates otherwise ? Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. So far as the first question is concerned, the learned counsel for the Department submits that it was found by the assessing authority that the dealer made purchases worth 12,813.50 ton of rice husk, the sale price of which was declared including freight at Rs. 62,52,991.82. The purchase of rice husk was estimated by the assessing authority at Rs. 69,50,000. The said finding was modified by the first appellate authority who examined the relevant documents and found that the dealer - opposite party has purchased both rice husk and paddy husk. Accordingly, it bifurcated the said purchase in the light of the records in rice husk and paddy husk. The Tribunal without considering the record committed illegality in accepting the claim of the dealer that all the purchases represent the purchase of paddy husk. Shri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the dealer - opposite party, supports the order of the Tribunal. Considered the respective submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the record. The dealer - opposite party has purchased the rice husk and the paddy husk within and outside the State of U.P. The Tribunal has noticed that in the survey dated January 12, 1994, four papers were recovered which includes the analyst report and registers also. Therein paddy husk was written. The dealer - opposite party has purchased the rice husk and the paddy husk within and outside the State of U.P. The Tribunal has noticed that in the survey dated January 12, 1994, four papers were recovered which includes the analyst report and registers also. Therein paddy husk was written. Explanation that since the said sample was brought by class IV employee who was not aware about the distinction in-between the rice husk and paddy husk, due to ignorance, in place of paddy husk, rice husk was written has been accepted by the Tribunal. The submission is that the acceptance of the explanation by the Tribunal is not justified as the dealer is bound by its own document. A bare perusal of the order of the Tribunal would show that the entry of rice husk and paddy husk found place in the register for the period from September 16, 1993 to January 12, 1994 on the basis of the entry of paddy husk and rice husk, the inference was rightly drawn by the assessing authority that the dealer - opposite party has purchased the rice husk and paddy husk as well. The Tribunal was not justified in the absence of any cogent material to accept the explanation of the dealer that due to ignorance of its employees rice husk and paddy husk have been used in the relevant record interchangeably. On the contrary, the use of two items at different places represents the purchase of different commodities and it indicates the real nature of the commodity purchased by the dealer. On the facts of the present case, the inference drawn by the Tribunal cannot be said to be based on any material and being perverse is liable to be ignored. There is no cogent material to show that the said mistake if any in writing the rice husk and paddy husk were treated at par by the person concerned. The Tribunal should have placed more reliance on the books of account, register, etc., which were maintained by the dealer to determine the nature of the commodity purchased by the dealer instead of an oral submission which is more in the nature of after thought. The Tribunal should have placed more reliance on the books of account, register, etc., which were maintained by the dealer to determine the nature of the commodity purchased by the dealer instead of an oral submission which is more in the nature of after thought. In this view of the matter, this part of the order of the Tribunal is not justified and it has committed illegality in ignoring the relevant entries made in the account books which are in the nature of admission of the dealer. It is set aside accordingly. It has been held by this court in Commissioner of Trade Tax v. U.P. Straw and Agro Products [2004] UPTC 1125, that rice husk and paddy husk are two different commodities and purchase of paddy husk is not taxable in the hands of dealer as a first purchaser. In this view of the matter, the question Nos. 1 and 2 are decided by holding that the turnover of rice husk and paddy husk as determined by the first appellate authority was justified and the Tribunal was not justified in treating the entire purchase as of rice husk and granting the exemption on the total purchase of Rs. 69,50,000. The dealer is liable to pay purchase tax on the turnover of rice husk amounting to Rs. 29,50,000 as was held by the first appellate authority. So far as the third question is concerned, the relevant facts are that in the relevant assessment year, the dealer - opposite party realised a sum of Rs. 9,37,500 towards lease rent by leasing out the unit, plant, land and building and machinery to M/s. Maya Laminates Pvt. Ltd. The tax under section 3F of the Act has been deposited by the dealer - opposite party under protest. The Tribunal has held that the machineries were permanently attached to the earth and being immovable properties, provisions of section 3F of the Act are not attracted. It has followed the decisions of this court in the case of Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P. [1998] UPTC 336. In the present case, the dealer - opposite party admittedly leased out the entire factory on rent and realised a sum of Rs. 9,37,500 towards plant and machinery, Rs. 6,25,000 rent of land and building. It has also deposited tax under protest along with the monthly rent as noted in the assessment order. In the present case, the dealer - opposite party admittedly leased out the entire factory on rent and realised a sum of Rs. 9,37,500 towards plant and machinery, Rs. 6,25,000 rent of land and building. It has also deposited tax under protest along with the monthly rent as noted in the assessment order. The copy of the lease agreement dated June 10, 1993 has been placed on the record. The assessing officer was of the view that the plant and machinery was let out to the lessee and as such right to use the plant and machinery was transferred by the dealer and therefore, tax under section 3F was levied. This part of the order was set aside by the Tribunal. It took the view that the entire paper unit includes plant, land and building and machinery were let out to M/s. Maya Laminates, Muzaffarnagar. The facts are not much in dispute and the controversy appears to be settled by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P. [1998] UPTC 336. Tax under section 3F read with section 2(d) can be levied under the U.P. Trade Tax Act only on the turnover of movable property. Plants and machineries permanently attached to earth are not a movable property and they are not goods. Even it was not found by the assessing officer that the plants and machineries are movable properties or goods or not permanently attached to earth. Shri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, submits that the matter requires reconsideration in view of the judgment of the apex court in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise AIR 1998 SC 1489 ; [1997] 10 JT 82 (SC). This was a case under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The paper making machine was erected at the sight after assembling the same. It was held that the nature of the machine is such that it cannot be transferred and offered for sale to any other party. The basis of the said argument was that the machine was erected on turn-key basis at the very place where the machine was ultimately embedded in a concrete base to make it a permanent fixture. The Tribunal, the last fact-finding authority found that the machine was attached to earth for operational efficiency. The basis of the said argument was that the machine was erected on turn-key basis at the very place where the machine was ultimately embedded in a concrete base to make it a permanent fixture. The Tribunal, the last fact-finding authority found that the machine was attached to earth for operational efficiency. Its object was to prevent wobbling of the machine and to secure maximum operational efficiency and also for safety. The finding of the Tribunal was that the paper making machine was saleable. In view of the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, the apex court has held that marketability is a question of fact and it cannot be said that the Tribunal has overlooked any material fact or its decision is perverse. The said decision rests upon a totally different fact - situation. The question as presently involved herein was not raised in that case. Even otherwise also none of the authorities below has found that the plant and machinery is saleable or movable and if somebody wants to purchase the plant and machinery it can be dismantled. The decision given in the case of Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. AIR 1998 SC 1489 ; [1997] 10 JT 82 (SC) is therefore, distinguishable on facts. Much emphasis was laid on the judgement of Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. AIR 1998 SC 1489 ; [1997] 10 JT 82 (SC). In that case a finding of facts was recorded by the authorities below that the plant and machinery is not permanently attached to earth and it can be removed. In view of above, I find no illegality in the order of the Tribunal holding that no tax is payable under section 3F of the Act. So far as question No. 4 is concerned, the learned Standing Counsel could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. In view of above discussions, the revision succeeds and is allowed in part and it is held that the Tribunal was not justified to knock of the tax on the purchase of rice husk amounting to Rs. 29,50,000. The rest of the order of the Tribunal calls for no interference. The revision succeeds and is allowed in part, as indicate above.