JUDGMENT Ms. Bharati Sapru, J. - Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned standing counsel for the Department. As the controversy involved in these two revisions is identical, the same is being decided by a common judgment and order treating the Commercial Tax Revision No. 1987 of 2008 as leading case. The Commercial Tax Revision No. 1987 of 2008 has been filed by the assessee, Mohan Gramodyog Sansthan, Saharanpur, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal dated May 13, 2008 for the assessment year 2003-04 by which the Tribunal has imposed tax on the assessee for the production of khal, which emerges at the time when ghani oil is produced. The questions of law referred are as under : "(A) Whether the Tribunal was justified in treating oil cake (khal), which is a byproduct of ghani oil covered by Notification No. 709 dated February 27, 1997 manufactured by the applicant registered under the U.P. Ghadi and Gramodyog Board, as not exempt from tax, even though exemption has been granted in earlier assessment years ? (B) Whether a byproduct would also be exempt from tax, like the main product, as per G.O. dated August 13, 1996, since production of byproduct (oil cake) is covered within the definition of 'manufacture' of main product (ghani oil) ? (C) Whether the Tribunal was justified in treating manufacture of oil by the applicant from expeller, only on the basis of previous history, though it was not found to be in use even during the survey or in the absence of any other material evidence on record ? (D) Whether the Tribunal was justified in passing a cursory order by affirming the order of the first appellate authority, and not considering the specific ground raised by the applicant that no diesel has been purchased by it and no purchase of oil seed has been made by it from within State of U.P. ? (E) Whether any adverse inference can be drawn against applicant for non-maintenance of manufacturing register as per section 12(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, when the product manufactured by the applicant is itself exempt under the Act ?" The facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the manufacture of oil from oil seeds. (E) Whether any adverse inference can be drawn against applicant for non-maintenance of manufacturing register as per section 12(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, when the product manufactured by the applicant is itself exempt under the Act ?" The facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the manufacture of oil from oil seeds. After the oil is extracted, rough material emerges which is known as khal and therefore this is the by-product that emerges after the extraction of oil. A survey was made on June 26, 2003 on the business premises of the assessee and at the time of survey, no manufacturing of the oil was found to be done. No stock of any oil or oil cake was also found during the survey. On the basis of survey, the assessing authority passed order on January 12, 2007 by which he rejected account books of the assessee and made a best judgment assessment for non-maintenance of the manufacturing register and violation of the provisions of section 12(2) of the Act. By this order, the assessing authority imposed Rs. 28,000 tax on sale of oil manufactured from oil expeller and Rs. 20,000 on sale of oil cake. The version of the assessee with regard to the non-availability of the stock of oil or oil cake was accepted by the authority. It is the assessee's case that he was exempted from paying tax on the sale of ghani oil by virtue of a Notification No. 2-709 dated February 27, 1997. It is the assessee's case that since he was granted an exemption for sale of ghani oil, its byproduct would also be exempt as per circular No. 1498 dated November 16, 1993. It is the assessee's contention that the imposition of tax on the byproduct is bad and is on the basis of presumption that because the expeller was installed in the premises of the assessee during the year 2001-02, he must have manufactured oil-cake by using expeller. The assessee has relied on the earlier assessment orders made in its case in the assessment year 1999-2000 wherein the authority had exempted byproduct known as khal, i.e., oil cakes by treating it as byproduct. The assessee has relied on the earlier assessment orders made in its case in the assessment year 1999-2000 wherein the authority had exempted byproduct known as khal, i.e., oil cakes by treating it as byproduct. It is also the assessee's case that the fixation of the purchase tax on dealer is on the sale of the oil cakes and also on the basis of a presumption as there is no discussion or reason given or evidence to show that the expeller was actually used and to what capacity. Being aggrieved by the order dated January 12, 2007, the assessee had filed first appeal under section 9 of the Act, which was dismissed. The assessee thereafter moved a second appeal which too had also been dismissed by the Tribunal. Having heard learned counsel for the assessee at length and learned standing counsel, I am of the opinion that the imposition of purchase tax on the assessee for the manufacture of khal is bad because the imposition of tax can only be made on the manufacturer under section 12(2) of the Act, which is liable to pay tax. Since the assessee was exempted from paying tax on the main product, i.e., ghani oil, which is not denied by the Tribunal or by any other authority, it stands to reason that byproduct would also stand exempted for reasons that byproduct only emerges when the main product is made. It cannot by itself become an item of manufacture. The learned counsel for the assessee has relied on a decision of this court in the case of Commercial Trade Tax, U.P. v. Royal Kola Sonpura, Varanasi reported in [2001] 19 NTN 432. This court also endorses the same view. Thus the questions A and B are answered. So far as the question C is concerned, the Tribunal has not shown any reason for coming to the conclusion that the assessee was manufacturing oil by way of expeller in the assessment year 2003-04. It is simply based on presumption that because in the assessment year there was expeller, which has been used. With regard to the question No. D for use of diesel, which is also totally without any evidence to show that the diesel was used or produced for the purpose of manufacturing. It is simply based on presumption that because in the assessment year there was expeller, which has been used. With regard to the question No. D for use of diesel, which is also totally without any evidence to show that the diesel was used or produced for the purpose of manufacturing. The question E is answered in favour of the assessee in terms of the answers given for questions No. A and B. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having examined the material on record, I am of the opinion that the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal is not justified. The orders of the Tribunal imposing tax on the assessee are set aside. The revisions are allowed as above. No costs.