This is a revision under Section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act against the order dated 22nd of December, 2000 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in appeal No. 78 of 1997-1998. The present revision arises out of the proceedings under section 4- A of the U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The applicant, a registered dealer, engaged in the activity of manufacture and sale of welding electrodes, MS Wires and Flex Cables applied for grant of eligibility certificate under section 4-A of the Act for exemption from trade tax for a period of eight years commencing from 21st November, 1991. The said application for grant of eligibility certificate under section 4-A of the Act was filed on April 10, 1992. The Divisional Level committee partly accepted the said application and granted the exemption for a period of 10 months from 26th November, 1991 to 29th of September, 1992. The eligibility certificate for the remaining period was refused by it on the ground that in the survey dated 20th Septem ber, 1992, the Surveying Officer found five old wire drawing machines which were in stalled. Being dissatisfied by the order of the Divisional Level Committee an application for review, as permissible under law was filed which also met with the same fate by the or der dated 3rd of March, 1997. These two or ders were challenged by way of appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal which came up for consideration before a three Member Bench as provided for under section 10 of the Act. The tribunal decided the said appeal by pass ing an order dated 21-1-2000 remanding the matter to the Divisional Level Committee to record a finding as to whether these five ma chines (wire drawing machines) were used by the dealer or not. The said order was sub ject matter of challenge at the instance of the assessee in T. T. R. No. 446 of 2000 before the High Court. The High Court by the judgment and order dated 1st of August, 2000 set aside the order of remand passed by the tribunal and directed it to decide the appeal itself in the light of the observations made in the judgment. After remand, by the order under revision the tribunal has dismissed the appeal. Hence the present revision. 2. The High Court by the judgment and order dated 1st of August, 2000 set aside the order of remand passed by the tribunal and directed it to decide the appeal itself in the light of the observations made in the judgment. After remand, by the order under revision the tribunal has dismissed the appeal. Hence the present revision. 2. In the memo of the revision the follow ing questions of law have been sought to be raised:- (i) Whether, the finding of the Tribunal that the applicant was found using the five old machines during survey dated 23-7-1994, is in the teeth of the judgment of this Court dated 1-8-2000. (ii) Whether, the finding of the Tribunal that the applicant had used the five machines in question in its manufacturing activity is per verse. There is no material on record, which may establish this fact. (iii) Whether, the finding of the Tribunal that the judgment in the case of Mansarover Bottling does not apply to the present case, is perverse and wholly illegal. (iv) Whether, even otherwise, the judgment and order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the applicant is entitled to full ex emption. 3. Shri S. D. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the earlier judgment of this Court, the tribunal was not justified in holding that these five old machines were used by the dealer in the manufacturing process. Elaborating the argument, he submits that even in the survey dated 23. 7. 1994 the applicant was not found actually using these machines. Submission is that these five ma chines were purchased by the applicant from M/s. Nahata Cosmetics and Chemicals Lim ited and that no manufacturing activity by the dealer has been carried out with the use of five drawing machines. In the alternative, it was submitted that the applicant has not claimed exemption under section 4-A of the Act by including cost price of these machines and the exemption application should be con sidered on its own merit notwithstanding the fact that after filing of the said application, the applicant has made additions or alterations in the unit by installing five old machines. Strong reliance was placed on a judgment of this Court in M/s. Mansarovar Bottling Company Lim ited v. Commissioner, Trade Tax U. P. 1999 UPTC 864 (para 8 ). 4. Strong reliance was placed on a judgment of this Court in M/s. Mansarovar Bottling Company Lim ited v. Commissioner, Trade Tax U. P. 1999 UPTC 864 (para 8 ). 4. Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, supports the impugned orders and sub mits that on a plain language of section 4-A (6) (2) (a) of the Act, the unit of the dealer cannot be treated as a new unit. The said provision defines new unit established after 31. 3. 1990. Any factory or workshop using machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus or components already used or required to be used in any other factory or workshop in India ex cept the boiler etc. , is not included in the defi nition of new unit. The tribunal which is a last fact finding authority, has found that the applicant has purchased five machines which on its own showing were not new; they were second hand machines as they were earlier purchased by M/s. Nahata Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. , admittedly, and were sold after 20 months to the applicant. 5. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The fact that the applicant has purchased five old wire drawing machines which were found in the survey dated 30th September, 1992 in the applicants premises, is not in dispute. These machines were pur chased from M/s. Nahata Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Nahata Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. had pur chased these machines for their own purposes, but according to the applicant they were not put to use for some reasons or the other and were sold to the applicant after about 20 months. The submission of the learned coun sel for the applicant is that even in the said survey, Surveying Officer has not reported that these machineries were actually found in use by the dealer, therefore, the applicants unit is a new unit within the meaning of sec tion 4-A of the Act. 6. The relevant statutory provision for the sake of convenience is reproduced hereinaf ter. The Explanation given in Section 4-A of the Act defines a new unit, established after 31st of March, 1990. 6. The relevant statutory provision for the sake of convenience is reproduced hereinaf ter. The Explanation given in Section 4-A of the Act defines a new unit, established after 31st of March, 1990. It reads as below:- Explanation.- For the purposes of this Section - (1) new unit during the period ending with March 31, 1990, means an industrial under taking set-up by a dealer on or after October 1, 1982 but not later than March 31, 1990 - (a) to (e ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (2) newunit, after March 31, 1990, means a factory or workshop set-up by a dealer after such date and satisfying the conditions laid down under this Act or Rules or Notifications made thereunder with regard to such factory or workshop and includes an industrial unit manufacturing the same goods at any other place in the State or an industrial unit manu facturing any other goods on, or adjacent to the site of an existing factory or workshop, but does not include - (a) any factory or workshop using machin ery, plant, equipment, apparatus or compo nents already used or acquired for use in any other factory or workshop in India other than [boilers, generators, moulds and dyes] and other than any machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus or component sold to it by any Government Company or any Corporation owned or controlled by the Central or State Government]; or (b) any factory or workshop manufactur ing the same goods established by a person on or adjacent to the site of an existing factory or workshop manufacturing the same goods wherein such dealer has interest as proprietor or partner or agent or managing director or promoter, director or as holding company or subsidiary company [if such existing factory or workshop is closed]; (c) any addition to or extension of an exist ing factory or workshop not being an exten sion, diversification or modernization within the meaning of Clause (5) of this Explanation. 7. On a plain reading of the aforesaid pro vision, it is axiomatic that a unit using ma chinery, plant etc. 7. On a plain reading of the aforesaid pro vision, it is axiomatic that a unit using ma chinery, plant etc. already used or acquired for use in any other factory or workshop in India, is excluded from the ambit and scope of new unit. Emphasis by the dealer is that five wire drawing machines, which were pur chased by the applicant in September, 1992 and were found installed in the survey dated 23-7-1994 do not establish that the dealer has installed any machinery already used or ac quired for use. A copy of the said survey has been filed along with the supplementary affi davit by the learned standing counsel. The Surveying Officer has reported that the appli cant has purchased six wire drawing machines, one weighing machine, six electric motors, two welding electrode plant, one lathe machine, one welding set, 350 A. M. P. one drill machine and one bit welding machine. These machines were newly purchased and were installed up to 26th of November, 1991, Further, out of six drawing machines, he was informed, one machine has gone out for repairing. Further, five wire drawing machines were purchased in the month of September, 1992 from a fac tory situate at Tatanagar wherein production could not have started and they were sold to the dealer. These machines have been installed but they have not been utilised for production. The relevant portion from the said survey re port is reproduced below:- "iske Sath Hi Sath Panch Wire Drawing Machine September 92 Se Tatanagar Sthith Ek Factory Se Kharida Gaya Hai. Yah Panch Drawing Machine Unaki Factory Se Kharida Gaya Hai. Bataya Ki Anand Marka Ye Panch Wire Drawing Machine Tatanagar Mein Ek Factory Main Lagi Tin, Jinke Yahan Utpadan Karya Prarambh Nahin Ho Saka Aur Unhone Mujhe ye Panch Machinery Bench Diya Hai, Jinka Installation Mere Yahan Ho Gaya Hai. Parantu In Machinoan Se Hamne Abhi Tak Utpadan Nahin Kiya Hai. " 8. Subsequent thereto, the dealer removed the said machines and applied for fresh survey, which was done on 28-8-1995. In this survey, the Surveying Officer was informed that these machines were not utilized in the production. Further, he was informed that these five machines are lying in open. Parantu In Machinoan Se Hamne Abhi Tak Utpadan Nahin Kiya Hai. " 8. Subsequent thereto, the dealer removed the said machines and applied for fresh survey, which was done on 28-8-1995. In this survey, the Surveying Officer was informed that these machines were not utilized in the production. Further, he was informed that these five machines are lying in open. The tri bunal took the facts into consideration, as were noticed in the aforestated two surveys, and found that the second survey does not deserve much credence as it was carried out on the request of the dealer. The dealer, in the mean time, became wiser and therefore to improve his case requested for the second survey. In my considered view, the said approach of the tribunal by no stretch of imagination can be said to be faulty. The tribunal has rightly ap preciated the factual aspect of the case. The second survey is more or less is in the nature of self-serving statement of the dealer appli cant. 9. The crucial argument that there is no material on record to show the actual user of these machines by the dealer, needs consider ation. The words used in the Statute are ma chineries etc. and already used or acquired for use in any other factory or workshop etc. The words already used and acquired for use as employed in section 4-A has been sub ject matter of consideration and interpretation by the Apex Court in State Level Committee and another v. M/s. Morgardshammar India Ltd. , 1996 UPTC 213 : (1996 All LJ 137 ). It has been held that when the clause uses both the expressions already used and acquired for use, they cannot be construed as mean ing one and the same thing by process of in terpretation. It is a disqualification if a new factory or workshop uses machines, acces sories and components already used in any other factory or workshop in India. It is equally a disqualification if it uses machinery/acces sories/components which were acquired for use in any other factory or workshop in India. It has been held that when the clause uses both the said expressions simultaneously, it would not be reasonable or proper to construe the words acquired for use as meaning the same thing as already used. It is equally a disqualification if it uses machinery/acces sories/components which were acquired for use in any other factory or workshop in India. It has been held that when the clause uses both the said expressions simultaneously, it would not be reasonable or proper to construe the words acquired for use as meaning the same thing as already used. Interpreting the words acquired for use it has been held that they must be understood in their plain and or dinary manner. It is enough that machinery/ accessories/components which are used in the factory or workshop claiming the benefit of section 4-A were acquired for use in any other factory or workshop in India. It is not neces sary to go further and enquire whether that machineries, accessories and components were actually used in any other factory or workshop in India. 10. In view of the above pronouncement of law, there is little scope of argument that there should be further enquiry that the wire drawing machines were actually used in any other factory or workshop in India. 11. The other limb of the argument that there is no material that the applicant has actually used these five wire drawing machineries and therefore, the orders are vitiated, is untenable in law. The installation of these machines in the factory premises of the new unit was found as a fact by the Surveying Officer in the survey dated 23rd of July, 1994, already reproduced above. The factum of installation of these machines is indicative of the fact that these machines were actually put to use by the dealer in the manufacturing process. Whether these machines were actually used or not, the burden lay upon the dealer to es tablish that these machines were not used in the manufacturing process, which it failed to discharge. The authorities below have rightly drawn an inference that these machines were actually put to use as they were found to be installed in the factory premises at the time of survey. Except making a bald statement which in absence of any corroborative material that these machines were not actually used, the said statement has been rightly discarded by the authorities below. 12. Except making a bald statement which in absence of any corroborative material that these machines were not actually used, the said statement has been rightly discarded by the authorities below. 12. In the case of M/s. Morgardshammar India Ltd. (1996 All LJ 137) (supra) the Apex Court has held that use of word or in be tween the words in clause (a) "already used" or "acquired for use" indicates that use of ei ther of them, which are already used or ac quired for use in any other factory or work shop in India, disqualifies the factory or work shop from being called new unit within the meaning of section 4- A of the Act. The said observations of the Apex Court in my consid ered view is complete answer to the above submission of the learned counsel for the ap plicant. Even if for the sake of convenience, it is accepted that these machines were not ac tually put to use, the other clause acquired for use stands in the way of the. applicant. The alternative argument, thus, raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is, therefore, untenable. 13. Strong reliance was placed on the deci sion of this Court in M/s. Mansarovar Bottling Company Limited (supra ). The facts of the said case may be noticed in brief. This was not a case for grant of eligibility certificate. But it arose out of the proceedings under section 4- A (3) of the Act for cancella tion of the eligibility certificate already granted. In the context of section 4-A (3), this Court was of the view that addition of old bottling machines after the grant of eligibility certifi cate will not empower the Commissioner of Trade Tax to cancel the eligibility certificate. The reason being that the eligibility certificate had been already granted and the installation of old machines were in the knowledge of the Divisional Level Committee while granting the eligibility certificate. Since the order of grant of eligibility certificate is appealable at the in stance of the Commissioner of Trade Tax and he did not file any appeal, could not initiate the proceedings for cancellation of eligibility cer tificate. 14. On the above facts, the order passed by the Commissioner, Trade Tax under section 4-A (3) of the Act was set aside. 14. On the above facts, the order passed by the Commissioner, Trade Tax under section 4-A (3) of the Act was set aside. The ba sis of the judgment as is apparent from para 8 of the report, is that the dealer having fulfilled all the conditions on the relevant date does not become disentitled to the facility of exemption merely because some old machines have been installed subsequently. Here, the position is otherwise. The grounds which are applicable for cancellation of eligibility certificate as found mentioned in section 4-A (3), are entirely dif ferent for grant of eligibility certificate under section 4-A of the Act. The ratio laid down in the above case, should be understood in the context of statutory setting of section 4-A (3) of the Act and it should not be torn and read out of the context. What meaning should be assigned to the words already used or ac quired for use was not the subject matter of consideration in the aforesaid judgment of this Court. The said judgment, therefore, is not applicable being distinguishable on facts. 15. A feeble attempt was made by the learned counsel that the dealer has applied for grant of eligibility certificate on the basis of the investment which were already made on the date of application for grant of eligibility certificate and since the cost price of five wire drawing machines were not included therein, the fact that these old machines were installed subsequently should be ignored. The submis sion was that the applicant is entitled for ex emption up to monetary limit of 125 per cent of the Fixed Capital Investment of Rs. 24,55,923/- i. e. up to the monetary limit of Rs. 30,69,903/ -. The said argument though attractive, has no merit. Exemption from pay ment of trade tax is granted under section 4-A to a new unit as defined therein. If an unit does not qualify the definition of new unit, the question of grant of any exemption under section 4-A of the Act, in my considered view, does not arise. Interestingly, it may be noted that the Apex Court in para 16 of its judgment in M/s. Morgardshammar India Ltd. (1996 All LJ 137) (supra) has rejected the theory of sub stantial compliance with the observations that there is no room for such a contention in view of specific language of clause (a ). Interestingly, it may be noted that the Apex Court in para 16 of its judgment in M/s. Morgardshammar India Ltd. (1996 All LJ 137) (supra) has rejected the theory of sub stantial compliance with the observations that there is no room for such a contention in view of specific language of clause (a ). In the face of clear language of the clause, the theory of substantial compliance as observed by the Apex Court, is not possible to entertain. 16. No other point was pressed. There is no merit in the revision. The revision is dis missed. But no order as to costs. Revision dismissed. .