JUDGMENT Bharati Sapru, J. -- Cause shown is sufficient; delay is condoned. This revision has been filed by the State for the assessment year 2005-06 against the order dated 25.03.2011 passed by the tribunal. The question of law referred to is as under: "(i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified in granting exemption against form 3A filed before it without completing the provision as contemplated u/s 12 of the Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified in holding that polishing and rubbing of silver ornaments does not amount to manufacture hence not liable to tax u/s 3AAAA of the Act?." 2. Insofar as the question no.1 is concerned, the Tribunal records that the assessee was able to file the necessary forms and therefore, was liable to receive the exemptions. 3. Insofar as the question no.2 is concerned, the assessee relies on the decision in the case of Atar Singh v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. & Others decided on 12.11.1997, wherein this Court has come to the conclusion that the work of cleaning and polishing of silver would not fall within the definition of word manufacture as contemplated under section 2(e-1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act as the process of cleaning does not entail a change in the original commodity so that a new and distinct article can be said to have emerged. The silver retains its original character as silver and therefore, learned counsel for the revisionist is right in contending that the cleaning of silver would not amount to manufacture. The second question is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. 4. The revision is accordingly disposed of. 5. Shri Vishwjeet, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondents.