JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - The applicant, a public limited company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, registered under the U.P. and Central Sales Tax Act, a "new unit" within the meaning of section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 has questioned the legality and validity of the order dated May 10, 2000 delivered by the Trade Tax Tribunal in appeal No. 96 of 1999. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and not much in dispute. It is an accomplished fact that the applicant applied for and was granted eligibility certificate under section 4A of the Act for manufacturing of four stroke motorcycle. The said unit had entered into an agreement dated 25th of March, 1996 with a new foreign collaboration, namely, Yamaha Motors Company Limited. The agreement was duly approved by the Government of India. In the present revision the only dispute is with regard to the interpretation of "fixed capital investment" as defined in Explanation (4)(a)(v) to section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The contention of the dealer that price or value of "know-how" shall also be included in "fixed capital investment" has not been found favour either with the Divisional Level Committee or with the Tribunal. The second dispute is with regard to the disallowance of the fixed capital investment of Rs. 12,60,000 for providing car parking to the engineers and other workers of the factory. The third and last grievance raised by the applicant is that instead of passing an order of remand to find out the investment made in canteen, the same should have been allowed by the Tribunal, as it was claimed. The Divisional Level Industrial Development Authority Committee (constituted under section 4A of the Act) through the Additional Director of the Industries, Greater Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar allowed the investment of Rs. 96.41 crores as against the investment of 130 crores claimed by the applicant, vide eligibility certificate dated June 17, 1999 for the purposes of eligibility certificate under section 4A of the Act. The said order was challenged in appeal before the Tribunal and it was contended that the investment made by the dealer towards the obtaining of "know-how" is liable to be included in the fixed capital investment. In this account it was stated that a sum of Rs. 3,75,00,000 has been invested by the applicant. The said order was challenged in appeal before the Tribunal and it was contended that the investment made by the dealer towards the obtaining of "know-how" is liable to be included in the fixed capital investment. In this account it was stated that a sum of Rs. 3,75,00,000 has been invested by the applicant. The Tribunal in view of the order of five-member Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Flex Engineering Limited took the view that the said amount shall not be included in the fixed capital investment. Challenging the said finding Shri Bharatji Agrawal, the learned senior counsel, submits that on a true and correct interpretation of Explanation (4) to section 4A of the Act, the investment made in obtaining the know-how is included in the phrase "fixed capital investment" as defined therein. Shri Bipin Kumar Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the Department, on the other hand, supports the order of the Tribunal. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Explanation (4)(b)(i), (ii) and (iii) to section 4A as it stood at the relevant point of time is reproduced below : "(4) 'Fixed capital investment' means value of land and building and such plants including captive power plant, machinery, equipment, apparatus, components, moulds, dyes, jigs and fixtures as have not been used in any other factory or workshop in India, Provided that - ... ... (b) for the purposes of determining value of plants including captive power plant, machinery, equipment, apparatus, components, moulds, dyes, jigs and fixtures only the following shall be taken into account, - (i) investment, whether by means of purchase, hire or lease in such plant, equipment, apparatus, components and machinery as is necessary for the establishment or running of the factory or workshop; (ii) investment as is necessary under some statutory obligation; and (iii) expenses incurred in erection and installation of such plant and machinery and bringing it to the site." The crux of the argument of the learned senior counsel is that mere purchase of machinery or factory without "know-how" as to how run or operate machinery or factory is of no use. According to him, the use of words "necessary for establishment or running of the factory or workshop" are indicative of fact that the investment made in the know-how is essentially included in the definition of "fixed capital investment". In this connection reliance was placed on a decision of the apex court in Scientific Engineering House (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1986] 157 ITR 86. Further reference was made to Commissioner of Income-tax v. Peas Industrial Engineers Pvt. Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 447 (Guj). The learned senior counsel for the applicant on the strength of law as laid down in the case of Scientific Engineering House [1986] 157 ITR 86 (SC) submits that the functional test as indicated therein will be applicable. It is difficult to agree with him. On a reading of the judgment in the case of Scientific [1986] 157 ITR 86 (SC), it would show that it has no application to the controversy involved in the case even remotely. The issue involved therein was totally different and the said issue was decided by the apex court with reference to the facts situation as existed there in the light of the provisions of the Income-tax Act. The Supreme Court was called upon to interpret the collaboration agreement between the assessee therein and M/s. Metrimpex Hungarian Trading Company, Budapest, and to decide as to whether the payment made by the assessee was attributable partly or wholly towards the acquisition of a depreciable asset. The said judgment has hardly any application to the issue involved herein. As was rightly pointed out by Shri B. K. Pandey, the learned standing counsel, the issue has been set at rest by the apex court in Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. v. Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. [2005] 141 STC 406; [2006] UPTC 85. It was a case under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act and the apex court has explained the phrase "fixed capital investment" occurring in section 4A of the Act, under the issue No. 3 therein. In this case, certain pre-operative expenses were claimed as part of fixed capital investment. They were - interest paid to financial institutions, right shares issue expenses, foreign technician expenses and foreign travel expenses. The Tribunal allowed them by relying upon certain decisions rendered under the Income-tax Act. In this case, certain pre-operative expenses were claimed as part of fixed capital investment. They were - interest paid to financial institutions, right shares issue expenses, foreign technician expenses and foreign travel expenses. The Tribunal allowed them by relying upon certain decisions rendered under the Income-tax Act. Disagreeing with that, the apex court held that the definition of fixed capital investment as given in Explanation (4) to section 4A is sufficiently clear and unambiguous. The use of word "means" in the Explanation shows that the definition is exhaustive. With this background, the following observations relevant for the purposes of the present case are apt as made in paras 66 and 67 : "66. Therefore apart from the actual investment in or cost of the specific items of land, building, plant, machinery, equipment, apparatus, components, moulds, dyes, jigs and fixtures, no other item of expense is includible under the head of fixed capital investment for the purposes of section 4A of the Act. 67. This principle of statutory interpretation is reinforced not only by the particulars itemized in form XLVI of the Rules but also by the procedures for determination of fixed capital investment specified in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the 1991 notification, all of which underscore the definition's restrictive nature. There is and indeed could be no reference either in the form or in the 1991 notification to any item outside the definition in Explanation (4) to section 4A." It has been further elaborated that the underlying object of the scheme of the exemption under section 4A of the Act is to grant the benefit by way of quid pro quo for the actual value of the assets brought into State. The determination of such value would necessarily take an objective exercise. Shri Bharatji Agrawal, the learned senior counsel, tries to distinguish it on the ground that the question of investment in know-how was not directly involved therein. He submits that investment made in foreign technician expenses and foreign travel expenses, etc., are quite different than that of the investment made in getting the know-how. The distinction pointed out by him has no substance. He submits that investment made in foreign technician expenses and foreign travel expenses, etc., are quite different than that of the investment made in getting the know-how. The distinction pointed out by him has no substance. A fair reading of the paragraphs 66, 67 and 68 of the judgement clearly shows that the apex court has laid down that only such investments which have been made in value of land, building, plant and machinery, equipment, apparatus, components, moulds, dyes, jigs and fixtures have been included in the fixed capital investment and nothing else. The definition of "fixed capital investment" has been held to be exhaustive in the above case by the apex court. The view which I am proposing to take is further fortified from the observations made in para 68 of the report wherein it has been laid down by the apex court that the object of the scheme of exemption is to grant benefit by way of quid pro quo for the actual value of the assets brought into the State. The assets herein, as pointed out by the apex court means only such items or articles mentioned in Explanation (4) to section 4A of the Act. In this view of the matter, the proposition as propounded by the learned senior counsel that the expenses incurred for obtaining the "know-how" are included as are necessary for establishment or running the factory under Explanation (4) of section 4A of the Act, is not correct. The further beacon light has been thrown on the controversy by the apex court by the following observations made in para 68 of the report : "... It is also noteworthy that the definition of 'fixed capital investment' in Explanation (4) talks of investment in land, building, plant, machinery, etc., and not investment in relation to or in connection with them. ..." In my considered view the aforesaid observations of the apex court clinches the issue finally against the dealer. So far as decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Peas Industrial Engineers Pvt. Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 447 is concerned, it may be noted that it was a case under the Income-tax Act and it has placed reliance upon a judgement of the apex court in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1975] 98 ITR 167. It may be noted the reliance on the case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1975] 98 ITR 167 (SC) was also placed in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. v. Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. [2005] 141 STC 406 (SC); [2006] UPTC 85 and it was disapproved with reference to the provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act in the case of Kajaria Ceramics [2005] 141 STC 406 (SC); [2006] UPTC 85. For the same reason, the third case relied upon by the learned senior counsel has also no application to the facts of the present case. Now, the second point regarding the fixed capital investment made for providing parking space to the officers and the workers of the applicant - company may be considered. Before the divisional level industrial development authority, constituted under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 it was submitted that a sum of Rs. 12,60,000 has been invested for providing the car parking. The said claim has been denied by the committee concerned and the Tribunal as well. It has been denied on the ground that section 4A of the Act does not envisage any such investment under the above head. The Tribunal rejected the argument put forth by the dealer on the ground that the investment of the said amount towards car parking space is not contemplated within the investment of building and in my view rightly so. It is not the case of the dealer that the provision for car parking is statutorily required under any particular statute. This being so, for the reasons given in the earlier part of this judgement with regard to the disallowance of technical know-how as also taking into consideration the ratio as laid down by the apex court in the case of Kajaria Ceramics [2005] 141 STC 406 (SC); [2006] UPTC 85, I find that there is no legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal on this issue. The third and the last argument of the learned senior counsel for the applicant was with regard to the investment made in providing canteen to the workers. Under this head the applicant has claimed investment of Rs. 2,16,09,000. Before the Tribunal it was urged that since there are more than 250 workers in the factory, it is mandatory under section 46 of the Factories Act to provide canteen to the workers. Under this head the applicant has claimed investment of Rs. 2,16,09,000. Before the Tribunal it was urged that since there are more than 250 workers in the factory, it is mandatory under section 46 of the Factories Act to provide canteen to the workers. Reference was also made by the Rules as framed by the State Government in this regard particularly rule 68 by the Tribunal. The requirement is that the employer shall provide neat and clean canteen to its workers. The canteen should contain a dining hall, kitchen, store room, wash basin and space for cleaning the utensils, etc., besides such doors and indoors so that the flies, etc., may not enter in the canteen. The Tribunal in principle has accepted the plea of the applicant in this regard but was of the opinion that the investment of Rs. 2,16,09,000 under this head appears to be towards higher side. In absence of relevant material, the Tribunal thought it fit to remand the matter for reconsideration to the authority concerned who may examine the expenditure claimed by the dealer under various heads keeping in view the statutory provision as contained in the U.P. Factory Niyamavali, 1950. It has been further provided by the Tribunal that before granting the claim, the authority concerned shall ensure that more than 250 workers actually worked in the factory. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the applicant is that this court should record a finding as to whether more than 250 workers were working on the relevant date or not. He submits that relevant documents have been annexed along with the revision as annexure 7, etc. The said plea is devoid of substance and cannot be accepted. A finding has to be recorded with regard to the number of workers and investments under the various heads as indicated in the Tribunal's order by the authority concerned, first. The said exercise cannot be undertaken by this court in the revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. It is neither desirable nor possible. Before saying omega to the case, it may be noted that in the memo of revision as many as 15 questions of law have been sought to be raised. But at the time of hearing except the arguments referred to above no other argument was raised by the learned senior counsel for the applicant. It is neither desirable nor possible. Before saying omega to the case, it may be noted that in the memo of revision as many as 15 questions of law have been sought to be raised. But at the time of hearing except the arguments referred to above no other argument was raised by the learned senior counsel for the applicant. There is no merit in the revision. The revision is dismissed. But no order as to cost.