JUDGMENT MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR - Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and so also the Government Advocate representing the Revenue. The genesis for the present appeal is the reassessment order passed by the assessing officer on July 24, 2007 under section 6(1) of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 for the assessment year 2004-05 by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Transition 12), Bangalore. The claim of the appellant while replying the notice of assessment was, that they were 100 per cent export oriented unit. Therefore, as per the notification of the Government dated November 30, 2001 No. FD 161 CSL 2001 (II), Bangalore they should not levy entry tax on the machinery imported by them for the purpose of processing of iron ore in their processing unit. They also relied upon the certificates issued by various authorities indicating that they are export oriented unit (for short, "EOU"). The concerned authority after hearing the assessee ultimately held that the assessee was liable to pay the entry tax at two per cent as contemplated under the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The first appellate authority after hearing the parties ultimately held that the assessing authority ought to have looked into the records produced by the assessee and directed the assessing authority to delete the entry tax levied on the turnover of Rs. 2,95,74,166 (rupees two crores ninety five lakhs seventy four thousand one hundred sixty six only). The reassessment order to that extent was modified with a direction to the authority to calculate the entry tax payable and issue revised demand notice accordingly. The Revenue had not chosen to file appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal challenging the orders of the first appellate authority. In the meanwhile, the revisional authority sent show-cause notice to the assessee and ultimately held that the first appellate authority was not justified in holding that the appellant - assessee was not liable to pay the entry tax. The Revenue had not chosen to file appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal challenging the orders of the first appellate authority. In the meanwhile, the revisional authority sent show-cause notice to the assessee and ultimately held that the first appellate authority was not justified in holding that the appellant - assessee was not liable to pay the entry tax. The revisional authority at paragraph No. 3 makes discussion on the objection raised by the assessee and proceeded to say that the appellate authority did not have the opportunity of looking into the account books and other relevant documents, which ought to have been produced by the assessee to calculate that the appellant - assessee was a 100 per cent EOU and therefore, its liability to pay entry tax was at nil. The main contention of the appellant - assessee before us is that if at all the Revenue was aggrieved by the findings of the first appellate authority, they ought to have approached the KAT and the said authority would be the final fact-finding authority in order to hold whether the assessee was entitled to claim 100 per cent as EOU and whether the certificates relied upon by them were genuine and proper certificates. From the submissions of the learned Government Advocate we are not certain whether the Revenue wanted to challenge the first appellate authority's order. The revisional powers were exercised by the revisional authority. We also note that the revisional authority has gone into the details of fact-finding and held that the material which ought to have been produced before the appellate authority was not produced because of non-mentioning of production of such documents in the orders of the first appellate authority. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed. However, the Revenue is at liberty to challenge the order of the first appellate authority in accordance with law.