JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. This revision has been filed under Section 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter called as “Act of 2008”) read with Section 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007 (hereinafter called as “Act of 2007”), assailing the order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Kanpur Bench 3, Kanpur dated 01.06.2009 in Second Appeal No.12 of 2008 for assessment year 2004-05 (Entry Tax). 3. This revision was admitted on 09.09.2009 on the following questions of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant was covered within the expression 'Manufacturing Dealer' as used in the Notification dated 18.2.2003 (Annexure-2 to the Revision Application) issued under Section 4-B of the Uttar Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000?” 4. Facts in nutshell are that the revisionist is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. Assessee was registered dealer both under the Act of 2008 and under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as “CST Act”). 5. The Assessee is engaged in manufacture of reaction initiators, reaction accelerators and catalyst preparation. It purchased business of catalyst from M/s. ICI India Ltd., now known as M/s. AKZO Nobel India Ltd. ("AKZO Nobel") in the year 2002 through Business Transfer Agreement. The land of manufacturing unit could not be transferred to purchaser company. The dealer entered into a Toll Conversion Agreement (TCA) dated 02.12.2022 with M/s. AKZO Nobel for processing and manufacturing of finished goods, for the raw material and capital goods purchased and supplied by revisionist. AKZO Nobel was restricted from using plant and machinery and raw material for any other purpose other than manufacturing the products for revisionist. The liability of VAT was discharged by revisionist, and the excise invoices for the transactions issued by AKZO Nobel, clearly mentioned that it was on account of the revisionist-company. 6. The dispute relates to the assessment year 2004-05. The Assessee purchased machinery, plant, parts and accessories worth Rs.1,27,37,568/-from outside State of U.P. The goods were imported and were installed at the site of M/s ICI at Panki Site, 2-B, Kanpur for use by M/s ICI to manufacture catalyst exclusively for the Assessee. 6. The dispute relates to the assessment year 2004-05. The Assessee purchased machinery, plant, parts and accessories worth Rs.1,27,37,568/-from outside State of U.P. The goods were imported and were installed at the site of M/s ICI at Panki Site, 2-B, Kanpur for use by M/s ICI to manufacture catalyst exclusively for the Assessee. The machinery brought into the State were liable to entry tax. The State Government exercising power under Section 4-B of the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 issued a Notification dated 08.02.2003, exempting from entry tax all class of small, medium and large manufacturing dealers, on entry of capital goods, plant, machinery and spare parts for use in their manufacture. 7. An assessment was made on 29.03.2007 for assessment year 2004-05 (Entry Tax), the assessing authority disallowed the claim of exemption made by Assessee and valued the plant, machinery etc. at Rs.1,53,65,061/-against disclosed value of Rs.1,27,37,568/-. It was taxed @ 5% and a demand of entry tax was made for Rs.7,68,253/-. Against the assessment order, a First Appeal No.535 of 2007 was preferred by the Assessee, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, a second appeal was preferred before the Tribunal being Second Appeal No.12 of 2008, which was also dismissed vide order dated 01.06.2009, hence the present revision. 8. Learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that catalyst was manufactured by M/s ICI on job work basis and other charges, and the machinery in question had been actually used by M/s ICI. According to learned counsel word “Manufacture” or “Manufacturing” or “Manufacturer” have not been defined under the Act of 2007. However, Section 2(2) of the Act provides that words and expressions used in this Act, but not defined shall have meaning assigned to them in U.P. Trade Tax Act of 1948 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1948”). 9. Section 2(e)(e) of Act, 1948 defines the word “Manufacturer” which means the dealer who makes the first sale of such goods in the State after their manufacture. The manufacturing activity is not only done at the premises of the Assessee, but also at premises not owned by the manufacturer. According to the Assessee counsel, the provisions or schemes of Act of 1948 and Act of 2007 do not restrict or confine manufacturing activity only conducted at the factory premises owned by the manufacturer. The manufacturing activity is not only done at the premises of the Assessee, but also at premises not owned by the manufacturer. According to the Assessee counsel, the provisions or schemes of Act of 1948 and Act of 2007 do not restrict or confine manufacturing activity only conducted at the factory premises owned by the manufacturer. Thus, manufacturing activity includes both direct manufacturing by a person at his own factory, or premises of another on job work basis. According to him, there is no dispute that the plant and machinery in question have been used to manufacture any goods, the sole issue is as to the identity of the person, who is engaged in manufacturing these goods. He then contended that the actual manufacturer of goods inside the State is the person who affects the first sale of goods so manufactured and not any other person in the manufacture. 10. From the records, it is apparent that M/s ICI India did not make sale of goods actually manufactured by it, or they can sale as per Toll Conversion Agreement, and it was the Assessee who made first sale of goods manufactured by M/s ICI India on job work basis by using the machinery in question. Learned counsel then contended that notification provides for all class of small, medium and large dealers to cause entry of capital goods, plant, machinery and spare parts into local areas from any place outside the local area for use in their manufacturing means such dealers who would affect the first sale of goods manufactured in the State. 11. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Bulbu Prasad Amarnath Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax U.P., 1964 Sales Tax Cases 46, decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Trade Tax Vs. M/s Rathi Ispat Ltd., Ghaziabad 2003 NTN (23) 674 and decision in M/s Universal Engineering Corporation, Saharanpur Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax U.P., Lucknow, 2009 NTN (40) 274. 12. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel, while defending the order of the Tribunal, submitted that the notification of year 2013 grants exemption only to a manufacturing dealer and not to a dealer who is getting the work done on contract basis. Commissioner of Trade Tax U.P., Lucknow, 2009 NTN (40) 274. 12. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel, while defending the order of the Tribunal, submitted that the notification of year 2013 grants exemption only to a manufacturing dealer and not to a dealer who is getting the work done on contract basis. According to him, the Assessee is a manufacturer, but is not a manufacturing dealer, and is not manufacturing the products for which the exemption of entry tax on the plant and machinery can be granted by the authorities. He then contended that the agreement reached between the Assessee and M/s ICI stipulates that plant and equipment means all plants, machinery equipment, computer and communication hardware, loose tools, fixtures, fittings, furniture and vehicle owned by M/s ICI and located at the site. According to him, the plant and machinery is only which is situated at the site of M/s ICI and the plant and machinery purchased by the Assessee and brought to the premises of M/s ICI cannot be said to have manufactured the goods, for which the exemption of entry tax could be passed on. 13. According to learned Standing Counsel the Assessee is not a manufacturing dealer and thus, not entitled to the exemptions given in Notification of 2003. 14. I have heard the counsel for respective parties and perused the material on record. 15. The short controversy engaging the attention of the Court is as to whether the Assessee is covered within the expression “Manufacturing Dealer” used in Notification dated 18.02.2003 issued under Section 4-B of the Uttar Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000. 16. Section 2(2) of the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 (U.P. Act No.12 of 2000) provides that words and expressions used under the Act, but not defined shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Act of 1948. Section 2(2) is extracted here as under:- “(2) Words and expressions used in this Act, but not defined shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948.” 17. Section 2(2) is extracted here as under:- “(2) Words and expressions used in this Act, but not defined shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948.” 17. Similarly words “Dealer”, “Manufacture”, and “Manufacturer” have been defined in Section 2(c), 2(e-1) and Section 2 (ee) of Act 1948 which are extracted hereas under:- “(c) ‘Dealer’ means any person who carries on in Uttar Pradesh (whether regularly or otherwise) the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods directly or indirectly, for cash or deferred payment or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration and includes- x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x (e-1) ‘Manufacture’ means producing, making, mining, collecting, extracting, altering, ornamenting, finishing, or otherwise processing, treating or adapting any goods; but does not include such manufactures or manufacturing processes as may be prescribed; (ee) ‘Manufacturer’ in relation to any goods means the dealer who makes the first sale of such goods in the State after their manufacture and includes- x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x” 18. From the combined reading of provisions of Act 2000 and Act of 1948, it is clear that the words and expressions which are used in the Act of 2000 and have not been defined shall have the meaning assigned to them under the Act 1948. 19. The words “Manufacture” and “Manufacturer” have not been defined under the Entry Tax Act either of the year 2000 which was repealed and subsequently, enacted by the Act of 2007. The word “Manufacturer” has been defined under the Act of 1948 which means in relation to any goods, the dealer who makes the first sale of the goods in State after their manufacture. The Notification dated 18.02.2003 which provides benefit to a manufacturing dealer of entry on capital goods, plant, machinery and spare parts into local area from any place outside the local area for use in their manufacturing has to be construed in harmony with the Act of 2000/2007 read with Act of 1948. 20. The Notification dated 18.02.2003 which provides benefit to a manufacturing dealer of entry on capital goods, plant, machinery and spare parts into local area from any place outside the local area for use in their manufacturing has to be construed in harmony with the Act of 2000/2007 read with Act of 1948. 20. “Dealer” encompasses any person who carries on in the State the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods directly or indirectly, for cash or deferred payment or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration and includes the persons mentioned in Section 2(c)-i to viii. 21. It is not in dispute that Assessee is a registered dealer in the State. He has brought capital goods in form of plant and machinery inside the State and had installed at the factory of M/s ICI and had got manufactured catalyst on contract/job work. 22. The Toll Conversion Agreement clearly stipulates that M/s ICI was to undertake manufacturing only for the Assessee. The Assessee had made first sale of the goods in the State after their manufacture and not M/s ICI, thus, stands covered under the term ‘Manufacturer Dealer’. On number of occasions, matter arose as to extending benefits to those manufactures who had got the job work done from various persons. 23. This Court in Bulbu Prasad Amarnath (supra) way back in 1963 while considering that converting oilseeds into oil which was a manufacturing process has been done at the instance of manufacturer dealer by another owner of the mill. The Court held the owner of mill to be not a manufacturer because he did not own the oilseeds or oil produced by him, as he did not buy the oilseeds from the Assessee nor sold the oil to him, but only charged the labour of crushing the oilseeds into oil. The Court held that in order to be a manufacturer, it is not necessary that person himself must manufacturer. 24. This Court held that work got done on job work by an Assessee is the work for the Assessee. It is wholly immaterial whether raw material is consumed by the Assessee himself, or he gets the goods manufactured from the agency of other persons on job work. 25. 24. This Court held that work got done on job work by an Assessee is the work for the Assessee. It is wholly immaterial whether raw material is consumed by the Assessee himself, or he gets the goods manufactured from the agency of other persons on job work. 25. In the instant case, the Assessee had brought capital goods inside the State, which was used for manufacture of catalyst on basis of job work done by M/s ICI, who was manufacturing catalyst only for the Assessee and for no other party. M/s ICI was charging for the manufacture of catalyst from the Assessee and was not making the sale and thus, cannot be termed as manufacturer defined under Section 2(ee) of the Act, 1948. It is the Assessee who had made the first sale and shall be deemed to be a manufacturer dealer and liable to claim benefit of the exemption Notification dated 18.02.2003. 26. Section 2(c) read with Section 2(ee) of the Act of 1948 clears the air as to the expression manufacturing dealer and it is the dealer who makes the first sale of goods manufactured is termed “Manufacturer” in the State of U.P. whether the manufacturing activity has been carried out at the premises of the dealer himself or got the work done from another premises on job work basis. The phrase used in the notification “for use in their manufacturing” has to be given meaning consistent with the meaning given to word “Manufacturer” under the Act of 1948. Giving restrictive interpretation to the phrase “for use in their manufacturing” to only include an actual manufactured and exclude deemed manufacturer would amount to causing harm to the plain and simple meaning of the term ‘Manufacturer’ defined in Section 2(ee). 27. The reasoning given by the Tribunal and argument raised by the State counsel cannot be accepted, as it would amount to doing injustice and interpreting the word “Manufacture” defined under the Act. 28. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is unsustainable in the eye of law and the Assessee-revisionist is entitled for the benefit claimed by him. 29. In view of above, the order dated 01.06.2009 stands passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside. 30. The revision stands allowed. 31. 28. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is unsustainable in the eye of law and the Assessee-revisionist is entitled for the benefit claimed by him. 29. In view of above, the order dated 01.06.2009 stands passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside. 30. The revision stands allowed. 31. The questions of law as framed above stands answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.