JUDGMENT Dr. Satish Chandra, J. - The present revision has been filed by the assessee under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against the judgement/order dated November 17, 2006 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, for the assessment year 1997-98. Heard Sri Mudit Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned standing counsel for the Department. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist - assessee is engaged in the manufacture and sale of iron and steel rods (sariya). During the assessment year under consideration, the assessee has purchased goods from the units which were enjoying the tax benefit under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, without paying any tax. The A.O. levied the tax at four per cent. The revisionist - assessee claimed that only two per cent tax will have to be charged from the assessee as in other cases only at two per cent tax was charged. Not only the first appellate authority but also the Tribunal uphold the order passed by the A.O. Not being satisfied, the assessee is before this court. With this background, counsel for the revisionist submits that the assessee has purchased the raw material from the industries who were enjoying the tax benefit under section 4A. He submits that the other manufacturers of iron and steel rods (Sariya) have purchased raw material from the industries who are not enjoying the tax benefit under section 4A and paid the tax at two per cent on raw material and also pay two per cent tax on finished goods manufactured by them. So, in the case of the assessee, the tax will have to be charged at two per cent on the finished products on the basis of equality. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Department has relied on the impugned order of the Tribunal by stating that as per O.M. No. TT-2-1626 dated May 21, 1994 the tax on the sariya is leviable at four per cent. In the said O.M., it was mentioned if the manufacturing of iron, steel is made from the raw material upon which tax was paid, the same will have to be reduced from the four per cent. In the said O.M., it was mentioned if the manufacturing of iron, steel is made from the raw material upon which tax was paid, the same will have to be reduced from the four per cent. He further submits that in the case of other manufacturers, they have paid tax at two per cent on the raw material as goods were purchased from the units which were not enjoying the tax benefit under section 4A. Remaining two per cent tax was paid on finished goods. Thus, the other manufacturers have paid two + two = four per cent tax on sariya. But in the case of the revisionist total four per cent tax was charged by the A.O. on the finished goods as the revisionist has paid "nil" tax on raw material. So, he made a request to dismiss the revision filed by the revisionist. Before concluding his arguments, learned counsel for the Department stated that this issue was already discussed in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra [1976] 37 STC 319 (SC) where it was observed that : "Entry No. (iv) in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as originally worded (prior to its amendment by Amendment Act No. 61 of 1972) was meant to enumerate separately taxable goods and not just to illustrate what was just one taxable substance, viz., 'iron and steel'. Each sub-item in entry No. (iv) is a separate taxable commodity for purpose of sales tax and each of them forms a separate species for each series of sales although they may all belong to the genus, 'iron and steel'. Therefore, manufactured goods consisting of 'steel rounds, flats, angles, plates, bars' or similar goods in other forms and shapes could be taxed again even if the material out of which they were made had already been subjected to sales tax once as iron and steel scrap." Further, it was mentioned that this court in the case of Sanjai Tube Company v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1999] UPTC 1125 observed by following the office memorandum No. ST-II-5912/x-9(169)/1983-Act-74-56-Order-86 dated July 31, 1986 that - "The aforesaid notification grants exemption only if the tax payable under the U.P. Sales Tax Act had been paid. The purpose patently, seems to have been to avoid excessive tax burden on certain goods, and the purpose certainly was not that the goods may neither bear U.P. tax nor the Central sales tax. In my view, therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sale of goods by way of inter-State sales the purchase of which did not bear any tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act because the seller availed of an exemption under section 4A of the U.P. Act was not exempt by virtue of the aforesaid notification dated July 31, 1986." After hearing rival submissions and on perusal of record, it appears that in the instant cases, issue is pertaining to the levy of trade tax on the finished goods, i.e., sariya manufactured by the assessee. Iron and steel is taxable at the point of manufacturing or importer. In the instant case, the assessee has purchased ingots (raw material) from the new units which were exempted under section 4A of the Act from paying any tax. From the ingot, sariya was manufactured. Hence, the point of taxability on manufacture of sariya has been exhausted/started at the very first point. When the new unit sold ingots to the assessee then the process of manufacturing sariya starts from the point of taxability. From the record, it also appears that other manufacturers have purchased the raw material from the units which were not exempted under section 4A and paid the tax at two per cent on the raw material, i.e., ingots. Thus, two per cent tax was already paid on the raw material which is part of the finished goods. So, the A.O. has rightly charged the remaining two per cent tax on the finished goods prepared by those manufacturers. But in the instant cases, the revisionist has purchased raw material from the units which were enjoying the tax exemption under section 4A of the Act. Thus, the revisionist has paid "nil" tax on the raw material. To bring at par as per the notification dated May 21, 1994, the A.O. has rightly levied the tax at four per cent on the finished goods manufactured by the revisionist. Ultimately, the Government will have to charge four per cent tax on the iron and steel rods (sariya) manufactured by the revisionist - assessee. To bring at par as per the notification dated May 21, 1994, the A.O. has rightly levied the tax at four per cent on the finished goods manufactured by the revisionist. Ultimately, the Government will have to charge four per cent tax on the iron and steel rods (sariya) manufactured by the revisionist - assessee. In the light of above discussion and by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the cases in hand, I am of the view that the revisionist also will have to pay tax at four per cent on iron and steel rods (sariya). Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal which is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. In the result, the revision filed by the revisionist is hereby dismissed.