JUDGMENT MS. BHARATI SAPRU, J. - Heard learned counsel for the assessee Sri Kunwar Saxena and Sri V. K. Pandey for the State. This revision has been filed by the assessee being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated February 16, 2002 passed for the assessment year 1993-94. The question of law referred to is hereunder : (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the rejection of accounts book was justified ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the estimate of turnover was justified ? The facts of the case are that the assessee was a 100 per cent export oriented unit, which had its manufacturing unit in the State of U.P. at NOIDA. The assessee purchased leather, which was the raw material for manufacture of leather garments from a shop at Karolbag, Delhi on May 12, 1993. It is the assessee's case that the goods, which were purchased at Delhi were sent to the NOIDA factory directly or through its head office at Delhi. The assessee states that it had purchased some raw material from a Delhi dealer. One lot was for the NOIDA factory and the other consignment was for the Delhi head office. According to assessee the consignment for Delhi was to be delivered at Delhi first and thereafter the second lot was to be sent to the NOIDA factory. These goods were apprehended. The goods which were sent for the NOIDA factory were accompanied with a form XXXI but since the lot for Delhi was not to enter into the State of U.P. there was no form XXXI along with it. Accordingly, the assessee was issued a notice under section 28A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act on account of the consignment covered with bill No. 2765 for a sum of Rs. 3,01,117 (this was the consignment, which was without the form XXXI). The learned counsel for the assessee has explained that even before the authorities below the assessee had given an explanation that the goods which had been seized were the raw material for the assessee and he was not required to pay tax on the same. His explanation was that due to some mistake of the driver, the consignment had reached the wrong place. His explanation was that due to some mistake of the driver, the consignment had reached the wrong place. The other part of the explanation of the assessee was that since the goods which were apprehended were the raw material for the assessee he was not liable to pay taxes on it and even otherwise he had produced his books of account before the assessing authority to show that all his manufactured goods were duly tax-paid. The learned counsel for the assessee has argued that there was no intention on the part of the assessee to evade tax and his finished goods were fully tax-paid. However, the authorities imposed tax of Rs. 30,000 initially, which was reduced by the Tribunal to Rs. 20,000. The learned counsel for the assessee has relied on a Division Bench decision of this court in the case of fain Shudh Vanaspati Limited Ghaziabad v. State of U.P. reported in [1983] UPTC 198 wherein the court has held that mere absence of form XXXI would not mean that there was any intention of the assessee to evade tax if the goods seized were raw material for the assessee. Jain Shudh Vanaspati [1983] UPTC 198 has been followed in a recent decision of this court also in the case of Commissioner, Trade Tax v. J.J. Enterprises, Deoband, U.P., Lucknow, Saharanpur reported in [2010] 29 VST 486; [2007] 34 NTN 316. The learned standing counsel has argued that the very fact that the consignment of goods was brought from Delhi to NOIDA was sufficient for the imposition of further tax on the assessee. Having heard learned counsel for the assessee and learned standing counsel, I am of the view that the assessee was liable to pay tax on his manufactured goods as his books of account showed that he had paid duly taxes on the goods manufactured by him, it could not be said that he evaded tax on account of the fact that some raw material was apprehended without form XXXI. For reasons that the assessee was not liable to pay any tax on its raw material, the assessee has relied on a decision of this court in the case of CST v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. NOIDA reported in [1998] UPTC 642. For reasons that the assessee was not liable to pay any tax on its raw material, the assessee has relied on a decision of this court in the case of CST v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. NOIDA reported in [1998] UPTC 642. Thus, in view of the string of decisions of this court, I also come to the conclusion that the imposition of tax on the raw material is not justified. The order of the Tribunal dated February 16, 2002 therefore is set aside. The questions referred to are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. This revision is allowed.