JUDGMENT Ms. Bharati Sapru J. - Heard learned counsel for the assessee and the learned standing counsel for the State. This revision has been filed by the assessee under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against the order of the Tribunal dated July 12, 2002. The questions of law referred to are hereunder : "(1) Whether a conscious decision having been taken by the Divisional Level Committee, prior to the issuance of the eligibility certificate under section 4A of the Act, regarding the process of dyeing being covered by the definition of the word 'manufacture' under section 2(ei) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, as is clear from the notice dated July 19, 1999 and December 19, 1999 and the replies given by the applicant, hence no proceedings under section 4A(3) of the Act can be legally taken in view of the law laid down by this honourable court in the case of Mansarovar Bottling Company Limited v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [1999] 115 STC 530; [1999] UPTC page 864 ? (2) Whether the eligibility certificate having been granted to the applicant in pursuance of the unanimous decision of the Divisional Level Committee, as is clear from the findings of fact recorded by the Trade Tax Tribunal that all the members of the committee have signed the decision of the committee and Shri B. P. Shukla, the Deputy Commissioner (Executive) has also affixed his signature of concurrence, no proceedings under section 4A(3) of the Act could have been taken by the Commissioner of Trade Tax to cancel the eligibility certificate ? (3) Whether, even if the decision of the Divisional Level Committee was erroneous, the Commissioner of Trade Tax could have filed an appeal under section 10(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act against the decision granting the eligibility certificate but the Commissioner cannot sit in appeal against the decision of the Divisional Level Committee granting the eligibility certificate ? (3) Whether, even if the decision of the Divisional Level Committee was erroneous, the Commissioner of Trade Tax could have filed an appeal under section 10(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act against the decision granting the eligibility certificate but the Commissioner cannot sit in appeal against the decision of the Divisional Level Committee granting the eligibility certificate ? (4) Whether rule 25(3)(d) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules is not applicable in view of the clear and categorical finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal of the certified copy of the judgment dated July 12, 2002 that the decision of the committee was reduced in writing and was signed by all the members of the committee and the Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Trade Tax as a member of the committee has affixed his signature of concurrence and has not appended any dissenting note ? (5) Whether, in any view of the matter, the order passed under section 4A(3) dated March 11, 2002 and the order of the Tribunal dated July 12, 2002 are erroneous and illegal, being contrary to the law laid down by this honourable court ?" The Tribunal in its order has recorded that the Divisional Level Committee which was considering the matter of the assessee with regard to section 4A of the Act, i.e., the eligibility certificate sought by him in respect of setting up a new unit which was being considered a new unit. A new unit was originally not being consented to by one member Sri Vipin Singh. However, this dissent was not made in writing and subsequently the eligibility certificate was granted on August 21, 2000 with the consent of Sri B. P. Shukla. Notice to cancel the eligibility certificate was subsequently issued on September 10, 2001 after more than one year. The other fact which admitted is that there was no concealment or any misleading information given by the assessee. Notice to cancel the eligibility certificate was subsequently issued on September 10, 2001 after more than one year. The other fact which admitted is that there was no concealment or any misleading information given by the assessee. In view of the decision of this court in the case of Mansarovar Bottling Company Limited v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [1999] 115 STC 530; [1999] UPTC 864 and also followed in Chetna Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax reported in [2007] 10 VST 569; [2007] UPTC 1299, I am firmly of the view that the cancellation of the eligibility certificate under section 4A(3) was not warranted and justified in the facts and the circumstances of the case rather, it was open to the Revenue to file an appeal under section 10(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act but it did not do so. Consequently, the order dated July 12, 2002 and the notice dated March 11, 2002 issued under section 4A(3) are set aside. The eligibility certificate is restored to the assessee. This revision is allowed.