JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri M.M. Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for opposite party. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 25.10.2015 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Agra in Second Appeal No. 405 of 2013 for A.Y. 2008-09 under U.P. VAT Act, treating the item manufactured and sold by the applicant as unclassified item and imposed the tax @ 12.5 % on the same. 3. The following questions of law have been framed in the present revision:- (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally justified in not treating the steel strip (shoe -shank) used in between the insole and sole of the shoe as iron and steel covered under the Entry No. 40 of schedule -II, Part -A of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 and taxable @ 4 %? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in not applying its mind to the alternative submission of the applicant that the steel strip (shoe -shank), is included in the "Lower of Shoes" as mentioned in the Entry No. 150 of Schedule II, Part C of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 taxable @ 4 % and treating it as an unclassified item taxable @ 12.5 ? 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the applicant is manufacturing and selling the steel strip (shoe-shank), which consists 11-12 mm size by cutting it into small size of 3" to 4" and is tampered by heat treatment so that it may bear the tension. Shoe shank is fitted in lower of the shoe and is covered under Entry No. 150, whereas upper of the lower of shoe is specifically mentioned but the authorities have illegally and in arbitrary manner treated the same as unclassified item and imposed the higher rate of tax @ 12.5 %. He further relied upon the meaning given in Wikipedia, which shows that "the section of lower shoe consist of an outsole, shank and heal." Therefore the applicant has rightly treated the shoe shank as the item covered under Entry No. 150. 5. He further submits that the Tribunal relying upon various judgements of the Apex Court had dismissed the appeal of the revisionist. 6. 5. He further submits that the Tribunal relying upon various judgements of the Apex Court had dismissed the appeal of the revisionist. 6. In alternative, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the entry mentioned at Serial No. 40, which consist iron steel as defined under Section 14 of Central Sales Tax Act. He submits that the goods manufactured by the applicant is iron strips and chemical analysis of the goods has also been filed which is similar to the raw material and final product. Therefore shoe shank should be taxed under entry no. 40 but the Tribunal being the last Court of fact has not whispered a word about the same. Therefore, the matter may be remanded back to the Tribunal for considering the said fact. 7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the order of the lower authorities and submits that the applicant is not selling lower of shoe but is manufacturing one of its component i.e. shoe shank which is used to manufacture the lower of shoe and therefore, the authorities below have rightly taxed the item as unclassified item and imposed the tax @ 12.5 %. 8. The Court has perused the records. 9. Admittedly, the applicant is manufacturing the shoe shank from steel strips and thereafter selling the same. The record further reveals that the strips, so manufactured, have the same chemical component as the raw material i.e. steel strips which after heating and tempering the shoe shanks have been manufactured by cutting it into small size 3" to 4". The counsel for the applicant has tried to justify that the entry will fall under Serial No. 150, which is quoted below:- "Serial No. 150-Prepared rubber accelerators, compound plasticisers for rubber or plastics, not elsewhere specified or included, anti oxidising preparations and other compound stabilisers for rubber or plastics, upper and lower of shoes, sole, ilet, shoe laces." 10. The aforesaid entry shows that various items of shoe i.e. upper and lower of shoes, sole, ilet, shoe laces are mentioned in the aforesaid entry. Had the intention of the legislature to exempt all component used in manufacture of lower of shoe, which consists the lower of shoes, shank and heel, there was no requirement for specifically mentioning the sole in the entry no. 150. Had the intention of the legislature to exempt all component used in manufacture of lower of shoe, which consists the lower of shoes, shank and heel, there was no requirement for specifically mentioning the sole in the entry no. 150. The item sold by the applicant is only one of the component of lower of shoe which cannot be covered in the nature of lower of shoe because lower of shoe consists of three items i.e. outsole, shank and heel. Admittedly, the applicant is selling only shank as such it is not covered under the said entry i.e. Entry no. 150 because the entry does not refer lower of shoe and all its component. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant to that extent is rejected. 11. However, in the alternative, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that admittedly the goods sold by the applicant has been manufactured by the iron strip as defined under Section 14 of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, where iron strips has specifically been mentioned. The said ground has not only been taken before the Tribunal but also before the first appellate authority and same has not been considered by the authorities below. The Tribunal being the last Court of fact, in para 4 of its order has referred the argument of the counsel for the applicant but has not whispered a word about the said contention in its finding. 12. In view of the aforesaid fact, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration as to whether the item sold by the applicant can fall under the iron and steel as defined under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act,1956 of Serial no. 40. 13. The revision is disposed of. 14. The questions of law are answered accordingly.