JUDGMENT : Dr. D.P. Choudhury, J. - Challenge is made to the order dated 20.2.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Odisha in Revision Case No. SU-04/06-07 confirming the order dated 28.4.2006 of the Assessing Officer for the period 1994-95, 96 and 1996-97 and 1996-97. Facts: 2. The factual matrix leading to the case of petitioner is that the petitioner is a registered Company runs pulverising unit and is engaged in manufacture and sale of garam masala powder and curry powder. It is a registered small scale industrial unit under the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1986 (in short "IPR-1986") under the District Industries Center (DIC), Jagatpur having permanent registration certificate. By using this sophisticated pulverizer the petitioner started commercial production on 14.4.1989 duly certified by the D.I.C. 3. It is also averred inter alia that eligibility certificate has been issued by the opp. Party no.4 avail Sales Tax exemption on purchase of raw material, machinery and spare parts and sale of finished products for a period of five year i.e. from 14.04.1989 to 13.04.1994 in accordance with Finance Department Notification dated 13.02.1987 bearing SRO No. 83./87. It is stated that this exemption has been accepted by the Assessing Authorities vide Annexure-1 series. After completion of assessment of Sales Tax under section 12 (4)of Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called "OST Act") for the period 1989-90 1990-91, the same has been accepted by the Assessing Authority towards exemption of sale of finished products. But later reassessment proceeding was drawn purportedly under section 12 (8) of the act on the plea that grant of exemption in assessment was irregular. The opp. Party no. 3 after considering the case of the petitioner in reassessment proceeding dropped the proceeding by affirming the grant of exemption as correct on. 4. It is further stated that opp. Party no. 2 in exercise of suo motu Revision under section 23(4)(a) of the OST Act read with Rule-80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules (hereinafter called "Rules") initiated Sou Motu Revision for the period 1989-90 and 1990-91. Opp. Party no.2 by order dated 22.7.1994 dropped the Sou Motu Revision proceeding by observing that the petitioner has purchased the pulverising unit from M/s. Jayems Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Ultimately opp. Party no.2 found the petitioner's pulverising unit eligible to tax exemption as per IPR-86 on the sale of its products. Opp. Party no.2 by order dated 22.7.1994 dropped the Sou Motu Revision proceeding by observing that the petitioner has purchased the pulverising unit from M/s. Jayems Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Ultimately opp. Party no.2 found the petitioner's pulverising unit eligible to tax exemption as per IPR-86 on the sale of its products. The petitioner has narrated about the good effect of pulverizers. It is further averred that the petitioner claimed exemption in original assessment completed under section 12(4) of the act for the period 1995-96 and 1996-97 in the reassessment notice issued by the authorities dated 12.1.2001 vide Annexure-3. It is alleged inter alia that opp. Party no. 3 observing that there was no escape turnover or under assessment turnover, dropped the reassessment proceeding by order dated 10.5.2002 although such order was actually passed on 30.3.2002. It is alleged that such order dated 10.5.2002 put to cover the 1994-95 to 1996-97 although the order was actually passed on 30.3.2002 dropping the reassessment proceeding. 5. It is further alleged that Opp. Party no. 2 issued a Suo Motu Revision notice vide notice dated 7.5.2005 purportedly under section 23(4)(a) of the OST Act read with Rule 80 of the Rules for the periods from 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 to revise the order of reassessment. In the notice it is stated that since IPR-86 is only giving exemption of tax purchase and sale for a period of five years i.e. from 1989 to 1994, the petitioner is not entitled to avail benefit for additional two years as the petitioner is not entitled to avail same under IPR-1989. The opp. Party no. 2 suo motu initiated a Revision proceeding without service of any the notice on petitioner against the reassessment order for the period 1994-95 to 1996-97.Opp. Party no. 2 illegally observed that Entry 21 of the ineligible list vide Finance Department Notification dated 16.8.1990 setting out "unit making spices, Pampad, Dal etc." and further Entry 51 providing pulverising units to be ineligible under IPR-92, do not extend any exemption to the petitioner to avail the benefit. It is observed illegally that the exemption of sale of the petitioner expire on 13.4.1994 Such order of opp. Party no.2 demanding to pay back refund for 1994-1997 already received, has been agitated on several grounds. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order the opp. Party no. It is observed illegally that the exemption of sale of the petitioner expire on 13.4.1994 Such order of opp. Party no.2 demanding to pay back refund for 1994-1997 already received, has been agitated on several grounds. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order the opp. Party no. 2 preferred Revision before the Commissioner of Sales Tax (O.P.No. 1) on different grounds, but the Commissioner of Sales Tax confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the Revision. Since no notice was served while the revision order was passed, the petitioner claims that he has not been given reasonable opportunity to put his grievance. Thus, it is prayed to allow the petition and confirm the exemption of pulverising unit of the petitioner unit of the petitioner to pay any tax on the self-same period from 1994- 95 to 1996-97. Hence the writ petition. Submissions: 7. Learned counsel for the petition submitted that since the petitioner runs a sophisticated pulverising unit and manufacturing various Garam Massala Powders/curry Powders and the General Manager of the D.I.C. has allowed the exemption of sales tax under IPR-1986, the impugned order of demand is wrong, illegal and not proper, In view of an amendment of Entry No.30FF under Section 6 of the OST Act, the demand of duty by the impugned order is unjustified. Moore over, the exemption period has been allowed for seven years from the date of commencement of commercial production, but the impugned order has lost sight of such period of seven years. According to him, the commercial production started on 18.4.1989 and it should cover up to 1996 according to the revised Circular issued by the State Government. He further submitted that when the Assessing Officer has not found fault with the statement submitted under section 12(4) and 12(8) of the OST Act and subsequent proceeding also went in favour of the petitioner, the suo motu Revision proceeding by opp. Party no.2 under section 23(4)(a) of the OST Act read with Rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules,1980 (hereinafter called the Rules) is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. It is submitted that the impugned orders passed by the authority are erroneous because the pulverising unit although notified to be ineligible at sl.no. Party no.2 under section 23(4)(a) of the OST Act read with Rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules,1980 (hereinafter called the Rules) is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. It is submitted that the impugned orders passed by the authority are erroneous because the pulverising unit although notified to be ineligible at sl.no. 51 vide notification dated 28.4.1992, the industrial unit run by the petitioner ineligible otherwise to avail exemption from payment of tax being unaffected by such notification in view of the foot note available in the notification protecting the industrial units who have availed the sales tax exemption prior to 28.2.1992. He further submitted that the eligible certificate granted to the petitioner to avail sales tax exemption as an eligible unit under IPR, 1986 as required under section 6 of the OST Act cannot be denied by illegal executive action to subvert the entire statutory entitlement of the petitioner. It is also contended that in view of the decision reported in Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2005 (142) STC 76 , the impugned order passed against such decision and the State Committee is perverse and illegal. He also submitted that according to the decision of this Court also the impugned order suffers from illegality and have passed without jurisdiction. Hence he submitted to set aside the said order. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the petitioner was manufacturing 11 items of finished products. Being a small scale industry was under IPR 1986. All these 11 items are spice powder and primarily they are spice production unit, for which the unit of the petitioner cannot be exempted from eligibility of sales tax. He further stated that although the petitioner claimed that the spice powders were prepared by using pulverizers, but preparation by any means will not take away the structure of finished products, which is not exempted from payment of sales tax. On the other hand, he submitted that the assessment order under section 12(4) of OST Act and the subsequent orders are not correct, but he supports the impugned order passed according to law. In whole, he submitted that the suo motu Revision proceeding purportedly started against the petitioner is legal and proper. On the other hand, he submitted that the assessment order under section 12(4) of OST Act and the subsequent orders are not correct, but he supports the impugned order passed according to law. In whole, he submitted that the suo motu Revision proceeding purportedly started against the petitioner is legal and proper. According to him the assertion of the petitioner that he used the pulverizers for grinding the spices is immaterial because the spice production unit is not exempted from payment of sales tax beyond five years as per the IPR-1986. The unit of the petitioner is not under IPR 1989 for which benefit of seven years exemption is not applicable to the petitioner. The petitioner has already availed the benefit for five years under IPR-1986 and he has failed to show any document stating that the DIC has already certified it to be cover under IPR-1989. So he submitted that the present impugned orders suffer from no illegality and the same should be confirmed. Points For Consideration 9. Now the question arises whether the petitioner is entitled for exemption from payment of tax for the period from 1994 to 1997 and consequently for refund of the amount already paid. Discussion 10. It is admitted fact that the petitioner is a dealer of small scale unit under Industrial Policy Resolution, 1986 (hereinafter in short 'IPR' 1986) engaged in manufacturing and processing of quality spices under the brand name, 'Swadist'. It is also not disputed that it has got certificate from District Industries Centre (hereinafter in short 'DIC') under IPR 1986 for obtaining exemption from the payment of sales tax for the period of five years under IPR 1986 and also it has availed the benefit of such IPR 1986 for a period of five years from 1989 when he commenced production of spices. It is also not disputed that a notification dated 16.8.1990 was issued by the State Government to the effect that the benefit of exemption would be extended for a period of seven years. It is also not disputed that the State Government issued another notification dated 28.4.1992 (Annexure-12) stating that no industrial unit indicated in the ineligible list shall qualify for receipt of the exemption under IPR 1989. 11. It is also not disputed that the State Government issued another notification dated 28.4.1992 (Annexure-12) stating that no industrial unit indicated in the ineligible list shall qualify for receipt of the exemption under IPR 1989. 11. It is revealed from the Annexure-1 that the petitioner was issued certificate for eligibility of sales tax exemption on finished products of small scale industrial unit from DIC under Odisha Sales Tax Act, 1947 & Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter in short called ('CST Act') as continuing unit of IPR 1986 as defined in IPR 1989. Such notification shows that the petitioner-unit started commercial production on 14.4.1989 to avail the benefit of IPR 1989 but it was issued in the following manner: Annexure-1 District Industries Centre : Jagatpur. No. 3502/Dt. 8.9.95 Certificate for Eligibility of Sales Tax Concession on finished products of small Scale Industries of CST and CST as Continuing Unit of IPR 1986 Under IPR 1989. ??.. To M/S. Agrawala spices & Food Processors, Plot No.2460,2461 & 2462, Nimpur, Jagatpur. This is to Certify that:- 1. The above noted industrial unit is a Small Scale Industry which has been accorded PMT Regn.No. 15/04/0657/PMT/SSI dated 07.06.89, 11.08.89 and 07.02.90 for manufacture of the following finished products. The unit has been registered under the OST Act, 1947 bearing regn. Certificate No. CU-II-4663 dated 29.12.87 valid with effect from 29.12.87 and CST Act. 1956 bearing regn. No. CUC-ii- 891 dated 29.12.87 valid with effect from 29.12.87. Sl.No. Name of the finished products to exempted quantity/value 1. Haladi Powder 2. Dhania Powder 3. Jeera Powder 4. Chilly Powder 5. Qurry Powder. 6. Garama masal Powder. 7. Black Pepper Powder. 8. Black Salt Powder. 4,54.200Kgs. 9. Panchu Phutan. 10. Amchur Powder. 11. Sambar Powder 2. The unit has started fixed capital investment after 1.4.86. and has gone into commercial production on 14.04.89. 3. The unit a Small Scale continuing unit of 1989 policy as defined in the IPR- 1989 and is eligible for exemption from payment of sales tax on sale of its finished products for a period of 7 (Seven) years from the date of commercial production as per IPR-1989 and subject to such rustication and condition as laid down in Finance Department Notification No. SRO-789/90 dated 16.8.90 as amended from time to time. 4. This certificate is issued for the year 1995-96 i.e. from 1.4.95 to 13.4.96.only. Manager (Credit) Project Manager Memo No. _____/Dt. 4. This certificate is issued for the year 1995-96 i.e. from 1.4.95 to 13.4.96.only. Manager (Credit) Project Manager Memo No. _____/Dt. Copy forwarded to the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Orissa, Cuttack/C.T.O., Circle-II, Badambadi, Cuttack/Director of Industries, Orissa, for favour of information and necessary action. Manager (Credit) Project Manager 12. The aforesaid list of finished products vide Annexure-1 not state that the petitioner is exempted to pay sales tax on the items as finished products. Aforesaid Annexure-1 does not state that the finished products were prepared by using pulverising method although the DIC issued letter on 8.9.19095. Annexure-1 crept doubt in the mind as to why such certificate of eligibility was issued on 8.9.1995 showing exemption for seven years from date of production in 1989 under IPR 1989 when petitioner claims that it is cover under IPR 1896 and it commercial production was started on 14.4.1989 and as per Annexure-11 the IPR 1989 came into force on 1.12. 1989. So the Annexure-1 is not support of the case of the petitioner. On going through the Annexures 4 & 5 it appears that the petitioner was assessed by the concerned Assessing Officer for 1995-96 & 1994-95 respectively. The orders are also identical to each other. For better appreciation, relevant portion of the Annexure-5 is reproduced below. "Annexure-5 xxx xxx xxx Though there certain force in the contention of the dealer it was not very clear from his arguments as to why the said unit would not be considered as a spice making unit. To clarify the doubt a reference was made to the General Manager, District Industry Centre, Cuttack, the issuing authority of eligibility certificate to the unit. The General Manager, vide his letter No. 2303 dated 10.4.92 clarified that the concern is not an ordinary spices grinding unit but a pulverising unit that functions with a pulveriser fitted with a blower integrator and dust collector." xxx xxx xxx 13. From the aforesaid relevant portion of the order passed by the Assessing Officer relying upon the contention of the petitioner to the effect that the unit of the petitioner is pulverising one, as it has been clarified by the General Manager in his letter no. 2303 dated 28.4.1992 that the unit of the petitioner is not an ordinary spice grinding unit but pulverising unit which functions with a pulverizer with a blower interrogator and its collector. 2303 dated 28.4.1992 that the unit of the petitioner is not an ordinary spice grinding unit but pulverising unit which functions with a pulverizer with a blower interrogator and its collector. Moreover the Assessing Officer relying upon the finance Department Notification dated 16.8.1990 vide Annexure-11 to the effect that the exemption of sale tax on the finished product has been extended upto 7 years from the date of commercial production of the petitioner. It is true that the clarification made by the General Manager shall not be questioned but such letter is not filed in this case. Moreover, pulverizer is not an ordinary spice grinding unit as clarified by the General Manager DIC but never denies it is an instrument used for spice grinding purpose. Moreover, the unit of the petitioner is spice making unit as the end product is the spices which are used for sales and tax imposed on the sale of finished products. Thus the reason given vide Annexures-4 and 5 did not apparently convince the Court to rely on it. Apart from this the notification dated 16.8.1990 vide Annexure-11 is issued under IPR-1989 as it is amendment to the Finance Department Notification dated 23.4.1976 to the effect that Section 30FF to the schedule of OST Act has been incorporated. That notification vide serial No. 21 takes out spice making unit from the exemption list. So the stipulation of 7 years exemption is not applicable to the spice making unit from one 1.12.1989. Such notification does not contain the pulverising unit as ineligible for exemption, but the certificate of the General Manager has made it clear that it's a spice grinding unit using pulverizer as available from the order of the Assessing Officer. At any rate it is reiterated that the unit of the petitioner being spice grinding unit cannot avail 7 years' exemption as per Annexure-11. 14. Annexure-2 is the order passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax by initiation suo motu revision against the present petitioner under section 23(4)(a) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act read with Rule 80 of the Odisha Sales Tax Rules. The relevant extract of that order is reproduced below: xxx xxx xxx I have carefully gone through the assessment record and the written submissions filed by the learned advocates. I have also perused the case law cited by the learned advocate. The relevant extract of that order is reproduced below: xxx xxx xxx I have carefully gone through the assessment record and the written submissions filed by the learned advocates. I have also perused the case law cited by the learned advocate. It has been contented that the Industrial Unit of the dealer is a pulverising unit eligible for tax exemption on sale of the its products as per IPR 1986. It has been further stated that pulverising unit have become ineligible to avail tax exemption vide Finance Deptt. Notification No. 19194/CTA-72/92F dated 28.4.98 and in the footnote of the said notification it has been stated that the Industrial Units which are set-up and in receipt of incentive under the notification of Govt. of Orissa in Finance Deptt. No. 27662- CTA-56/90F dated 16.8.90 will continue to the said incentives. In this connection I have perused the certificate granted by the Project Manager D.I.C., Jagatapur according to which it has been that the unit is eligible for exemption from payment of sales tax on sale of its finished products for a period of 5 years from the date of its commercial production as per I.P.R. 1986. It is also noticed from purchase bill bearing No. 62 Dated 11.2.88 that the dealer has purchased a pulverising unit at a cost of Rs. 50,190/- from M/s Jayems Engineering Co.(P) Ltd, Calcutta. xxx xxx xxx 15. After observing the same the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax drooped the proceeding initiated under the relevant provision of the Act and Rules thereof for the assessment years 1980-90 & 1990-91. The concerned Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax on the footing that the pulverising units were eligible for tax exemption pursuant to the notification dated 16.8.1990 and as such eligible to continue the same under IPR 1989. This order relates to years 1989-90 and 1990-91 but does not relate to the disputed years of 1994-95 and 1995-96, against which relief has been claimed, therefore, Annexure-2 has no strength to support petitioner. This order relates to years 1989-90 and 1990-91 but does not relate to the disputed years of 1994-95 and 1995-96, against which relief has been claimed, therefore, Annexure-2 has no strength to support petitioner. On 7.5.2005 vide Annexure-6 the sou motu revision notice section 23(4)(a) or OST Act read with Rule 80 of OST Rules was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax because they found that the petitioner has availed the tax exemption for the period 1994-97 showing it as pulverising unit not spice making unit which is not eligible under IPR 1989 and under 30FF of the OST Act and the Sales Tax Officer has accepted the same against the interest of Revenue. It appears from Annexure-8 that after the notice was issued, the matter was heard and was disposed of by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Cuttack II Range. Thus the proceeding under section 23(4)(a) of the Act and Rule 80 of the Rules was pressed into service purportedly stating that the spice making unit is not eligible for tax exemption. Necessary extract of the order is placed hereunder for better analysis. "Annexure-8 xxx xxx xxx 8. When the assessee realised that spice making unit is not eligible for tax exemption he took the contention that his unit is not spice making unit but a pulverising unit. In order to cover up the Lapse, he represented to DIC, Jagatpur and DIC, Jagatpur vide their letter No. 1967 dated 21/4/91 intimated that the unit is not an ordinary spice making unit but a highly sophisticate spice making unit where grinding is done with a high carbon steel hammer which is cooled by cold water supply being circulated around the grinding chamber. By this, the colour, the flavour and the natural taste of the ingredients remain unchanged. From the letter of DIC it is clear that the unit is making spice and nothing else, but the production is made through an advance technological method. Whether spice is made manually at home of though manufacturing units with highly technological process the product remains the same i.e. spices. It is known as spices in Commercial Circles irrespective of the method of production. The word Spice means "automatic or pungent vegetable substances use to flavour food". The taste and the purpose for which it is produced remains the same. It is known as spices in Commercial Circles irrespective of the method of production. The word Spice means "automatic or pungent vegetable substances use to flavour food". The taste and the purpose for which it is produced remains the same. The production through machine only reduces the cost of production and gives the product a lusture but the inherent character of the commodity remains unchanged. Therefore, the connection of the appellant that it is not spice making unit but pulverising unit does not hold enough water. 9. While things stood thus, Govt, vide notification No-19194 CTA72/92f dated 28/04/92 added another 38 nos. Of industries to the ineligible List and according to Sl, No.-51 of the said list pulversing units are excluded from tax exemption list. So by 29.04.92 both spice making unit and pulverising units are excluded from tax exemption on sale of its finished products for a period of 5 years from the date of commercial production as per entry 30FF (pre amended) of tax free list of CST rate chart. Since this unit has started commercial production from 14/04.89, the period of exemption on sale of finished products expires on 13/04/89, and no exemption is available thereafter. Hence allowance of exemption beyond 13/04/94 is erroneous, irregular and against revenue. xx xx xx" 16. It appears that the concerned officer has observed clearly in the aforesaid paras that the unit of the petitioner was spice manufacturing unit and also it is filtered that the period of exemption of sale of finished products is five years under IPR 1986 and it has expired on 13.4.1994. Hence the concerned Sales Tax Officer disallowed the exemption granted to the petitioner on finished products for the year 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 amounting to Rs. 42,64,754.00. On going through the detailed order, it appears that the concerned authority has distinguished the case of the present petitioner from the case law cited by the petitioner before him and he is of the view that the five years of exemption was granted to the petitioner and it expired on 13.4.1994. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the exemption period could be extended for seven years in view of the Government notification dated 28.4.1992. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the exemption period could be extended for seven years in view of the Government notification dated 28.4.1992. On going through the Notification dated 28.4.1992 vide Annexure-12 it appears that 38 categories of Industries with its expansion have been added to the Schedule under Section 6 of OST Act showing the same as ineligible to avail exemption under serial No. 30FF of the Schedule vide notification issued on 16.8.1990. Essentially pulverising unit vide serial No. 51 has also been ineligible to avail exemption from 29.4.1992. But there is a foot note stating industrial unit which are set up and in receipt of the incentive under that notification of Government of Orissa Finance Department Notification No. 27662-CTA-56/90F dated 16.08.1990 (Annexure-11) will continue to receive the said incentive. It has already been discussed above that the unit petitioner was not having pulverising unit nut a spice grinding unit the finished products of different spices. Thus the pulverising unit even if became ineligible under Notification dated 28.4.1992 (Annexure-12), cannot be also allowed to avail the exemption as claimed by the petitioner. It is also reiterated that Annexure-12 is further addition to Notification dated 16.8.1990 (Annexure-11) and the Notification dated 16.8.1990 relates to IPR-1989. When there is no claim of the petitioner that his unit is covered under IPR-1989 but covered under IPR-1986 where under, neither the spice making unit nor the pulverising unit can be said to have availed the exemption of 7 years,' thus the order passed the learned Assessing Officer vide Annexure-8 cannot be said to illegal. 17. Annexure-9 is the impugned order where appeal was preferred against the order dated 28.4.2006 vide Annexure-8 Relevant portion of the order is also placed below: "xxx xxx xxx But in the case of the petitioner, the SSI Unit was a 'spice making unit' and subsequently it was changed to 'Pulverizing Unit' but the end product remains the same as "spices" even though the claim of the petitioner is that he has used sophisticated machinery for pulverization. The production/manufacture by the pulverising unit is spices and is being sold as spices in the market. The production/manufacture by the pulverising unit is spices and is being sold as spices in the market. Both the spice making industry and/or the pulversing unit was declared ineligible by the Notification issued by Government by F.D. Therefore, the claims of the petitioner that on the strength of the 'footnote' it will continue to enjoy exemption of additional two years are unsustainable. The incentives envisaged under IPR 7989 has been abridged/modified/enlarged as per the aforesaid guidelines issued by Government in F.D placing clearly the spice making industry and subsequently pulverising unit beyond the pale of exemption of sales tax. Further the intention of the 'foot note' is not to deny the incentive to industrial units which have made investment pursuant to a promise or representation made in IPR-1989. But the fact of the appellant is that it has made investment during IPR- 1986 and has not made any investment under IPR-89. Therefore, there is no case for application of the 'foot note' to the notification dated 29.04.92 to the case of the petitioner. Moreover, the appellant's unit is entitled to benefit of exemption under IPR- 1986 and entry 30-FF of the tax free schedule for period of 5 years from 14.04.89 to 13.04.94. It is only from 14.04.94. It is only from 14.04.94 that claims to exemption from sales tax on sale of finished product for an additional period of 2 years, over and above 5 years allowed. Under IPR- 1986 arises. Till that date the petitioner was not in receipt of any incentive under IPR-1989, Accordingly, the 'foot note' in the notification dated 29.04.92 does not apply. Entry 30FF originally allowed sales tax incentives of sale of finished products to industrial units of IPR-1989. To allow additional benefit of 2 more years, the entry was amended in notification dated 16.08.90 substituting the period of 5 years in column 3 of the entry to 7 years. And the existing lit of ineligible industries was also substituted as per Annexure-1 of IPR-1989. The question whether the units of IPR-1986, which were availing benefit of exemption under 30FF would cease to avail benefit for any balance period out of 5 years was considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of M/s. Mansfield Electronics v. State of Orissa and Anr. in OJC No. 4153 of 90 decided in 1st May 1992. in OJC No. 4153 of 90 decided in 1st May 1992. In that case, the petitioner was a manufacture of Black & White Television sets and enjoying sales tax exemption under entry 30FF of the notification dated 13.02.1987. The exemption for manufacture of Black & White Television sets was withdrawn by the notification dated 16.08.90 by amendment of entry 30FF. The Hon'ble Court held that an exemption which was granted by one notification to remain operative for a period of time as till that period is over irrespective of the fact, as to whether the notification is subsequently amended by abridging the period of exemption. It was concluded that "such units are to enjoy the privilege of exemption till lapse of full period as was allowed to them under the earlier notification". Thus, according to this decision, industrial units which were eligible to incentive under IPR-1986 but were declared ineligible under IPR-1989 would not be entitled to the benefit for additional 2 years under IPR-1989. xxx xxx xxx" 18. In the impugned order dated 20.2.2007 (Annexure-9) passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack (O.P.No.1) it is abundantly clear that SSI unit of petitioner was spice making unit but subsequently used pulverizer to prepare spices but the finished products remained the same and the sales tax imposed is exempted on the finished products which do not undergo any change. Beyond the relevant portion as extracted above, Appellate Authority has also gone into the depth of the interpretation of the industrial unit and also other aspects of the case to unveil the real truth. It is clear from the impugned order that IPR-1989 is not at all applicable to the facts of the case of present petitioner and his case is governed under IPR-1986 and IPR-1986 is clear to the effect that the incentive can be availed for exemption of the payment of sales tax for a period of five years audit has been availed as observed in the impugned order, that is from 14.4.1989 to 13.4.1994. 19. So far as the foot note to the Notification dated 28.4.1992 (Annexure-12) is concerned, the exemption will not be available to the petitioner as the said industrial unit of the petitioner is not covered under IPR-1989. 19. So far as the foot note to the Notification dated 28.4.1992 (Annexure-12) is concerned, the exemption will not be available to the petitioner as the said industrial unit of the petitioner is not covered under IPR-1989. Even if the petitioner claimed that the vide Notification dated 16.8.1990 (Annexure-11) read with Notification dated 28.4.1992 (Annexure-12) are taken into consideration and in view of the foot root, he will continue to avail the said incentive, it must be held that neither the spice making unit nor the pulverising unit being excluded from the exemption list, is liable to get any benefit. Apart from this on going through the notification vide Annexure-11 it is found that the exemption for a period of 7 years from the commercial production must be certified by the General Manager of concerned DIC and bereft of that certificate, in the present case, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of such notification dated 16.8.1990 read with dated 28.4.1992. This fact has also been clearly available from the impugned order under Annexure-9. On facts, the case of the petitioner has become unsuccessful. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the is Court in Shri Ganesh Roller Mills (supra) according to him, the exemption for a period of seven years should be available on sale of finished products. On going through the said decision, it appears that in the said case this Court analysed the definition of 'manufacture' and interpreted the entry no. 43 in the list of ineligible industries mentioning 'units manufacturing besan out of Dal'. Here the case is different as no interpretation of any serial number of para-30FF is required in this case. In that case, entry no. 43 taken as eligible industry and as such extended 7 years' exemption. So on the facts the case in hand is distinguished from the facts of the case for which such case law is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of Vadilal Chemicals Ltd (supra). In that the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly observed that the Sales Tax Officer has no power to interpret notification of the industry department being a functionary of the Government. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of Vadilal Chemicals Ltd (supra). In that the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly observed that the Sales Tax Officer has no power to interpret notification of the industry department being a functionary of the Government. Here with no respectable disagreement of the said view of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are also of the view that the Government Notification is binding on the authorities of the Sales Tax Department but the facts of the present case is distinguishable from the facts of the said case. So the said decision will not be of any help to the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue has cited decision of this Court in M/s. Mansfield Electronics v. State of Orissa and another in OJC No. 4153 of 1990 decided on 1st may, 1992 where the question of exemption of manufacturing black and white television was considered. There this Court held that an exemption which was granted by one notification to remain operative for a period of the time as specified in that notification, would continue to remain in force that period is over irrespective of the fact as to whether the notification is subsequently amended by abridging the period exemption. Since in the instant case IPR- 1986 did not extend any time of exemption but limited to five years and the petitioner has availed the same, the question of extension for two years under abridge notification dated 16.8.1990 (Annexure-11), cannot be extended under IPR-1989 to the petitioner. So the decision cited by the learned counsel for the Revenue is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. As such the point for determination goes in favour of the Revenue. CONCLUSION 21. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the view that the unit of the present petitioner being a spice making unit is only eligible for exemption for a period of five years from the date of manufacture and is cannot avail the exemption for the year 1994-95, 1995-97 and 1996-97. Since the dispute for 1996-1997 is not raised before us, we limits this order to the period of 1994- 95 and 1995-96. Since the dispute for 1996-1997 is not raised before us, we limits this order to the period of 1994- 95 and 1995-96. On the other hand, the refund availed by the petitioner for these two on the pretext of such notification, is illegal and the impugned order under Annexures-8 and 9 are legal and proper. We, therefore, affirm the orders passed under Annexures- 8 & 9. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed