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 against the order of the Tribunal dated January 9, 2002 in proceedings initiated under section 4A(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The questions of law referred to are hereunder : "(i) Whether in view of the law laid down by the honourable High Court in Mansarovar Bottling Company Limited v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [1999] 115 STC 530, the manner in which power under section 4A(3) of the Act has been exercised could be said to be valid and within competence ? (ii) Whether all the material facts and reports being already available prior to the issuance of the eligibility certificate and there being no allegation that old machinery was used ? (iii) Whether a technical report to the fact that the products, namely, billets and ingots are not same or they differ in properties as well as in end use, duly supported by nonetheless Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur and Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur may be overlooked by a non-technical person, as has been done by the learned Commissioner, Trade Tax ? (iv) Whether the manner in which the applicant has produced a diversified product and thereafter got it rolled in another unit amounts to misuse ? (v) Whether the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the circular No. 3307 dated December 28, 1985 does not help the applicant ? (vi) Whether in view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Indra Industries [2000] UPTC 472, the circular was binding upon the Department; hence on the ground of some job-work having been done by the applicant for the manufacture of the ultimate product, the eligibility certificate could not have been cancelled under section 4A(3) of the Act ? (vii) Whether, in any view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Commissioner, Trade Tax under section 4A(3) of the Act and that of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside ?" The facts of the case are that the assessee had applied for eligibility certificate under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, which was granted to them on August 6, 1997 for a period of nine years from November 18, 1994 to November 17, 2003. The assessee initially applied for a certificate for the production of steel and ingots and later on diversified and started making billets also. The Commissioner, Trade Tax issued a notice under section 4A(3) on January 6, 1999 to cancel the eligibility certificate. The assessee filed a reply to the notice given by the Commissioner but the certificate was cancelled on January 29, 2001. Three reasons were assigned for cancellation of the certificates : "(i) Old furnace was used in the factory in the shape of feeder till June 28, 1997. (ii) Billets manufactured under diversification scheme were used for production of rolled products on job work basis through M/s. R.H.L. Profiles Ltd. (iii) Prior to diversification also, billets manufactured in the old units were being used for production of rolled products on job-work basis through M/s. R.H.L. Profiles Ltd." It has been mainly argued by the learned counsel for the assessee that the powers of the Commissioner are exercisable under section 4A(3) of the Act at par with the provisions of section 22 of the Act and the jurisdiction under this provision is limited to rectification of mistakes of law or facts, which are apparent on the face of the record and also this provision can be invoked when the authority comes to the conclusion that there is misuse of the eligibility certificate. The learned counsel has, therefore, argued that since the conditions to be followed under section 4A had not been contravened in any manner by the assessee, the powers under section 4A(3) could not have been invoked by the Commissioner. Second argument is that at the time of grant of the eligibility certificate the Divisional Level Committee consisting of three members had closely scrutinized the facts and the circumstances stated by the assessee and had thereafter granted the certificate. If any discrepancy had occurred at that time then, it was open to the Commissioner to invoke the provisions of section 10(2) of the Act and file an appeal, but in the present case no appeal has been filed. In reply to the arguments made by learned counsel for the assessee, learned standing counsel has not been able to show from any of the order that there are any findings of misuse of the eligibility certificate made by the assessee. In reply to the arguments made by learned counsel for the assessee, learned standing counsel has not been able to show from any of the order that there are any findings of misuse of the eligibility certificate made by the assessee. The learned standing counsel has also considered that no appeal was filed by the Department under section 10(2) of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee has relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Hotz Industries Ltd., G.B. Nagar v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow [2010] 28 VST 482 (All); [2010] 1 DLJ 88, in which this court has relied on its earlier decisions of Mansarovar Bottling Company Limited v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [1999] 115 STC 530; [1999] UPTC 864 and Chetna Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Gorakhpur v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [2007] 10 VST 569; [2007] UPTC 1299, wherein this court has taken the consistent view that unless the conditions of section 4A of the Act are contravened actively by an assessee, the cancellation of an eligibility certificate under section 4A(3) is neither warranted nor justified. In this case also there are no allegations of any misuse of eligibility certificate. There are also no finding that there has been any mistake or error of law and fact and has it been considered by the State that it did not file an appeal under section 10(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The inevitable conclusion is that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is not justified in the facts of this case. It is therefore, set aside. The revision is allowed. The eligibility certificate shall be restored to the assessee. The order passed by the Commissioner cancelling the eligibility certificate dated January 29, 2009 is also set aside.