JUDGMENT : Ritu Bahri, C.J. There is a delay of 164 days in filing the present Revision. For the reasons stated in the application seeking condonation of delay, the delay is condoned. Delay Condonation Application (IA/1/2023) is allowed. 2. The present Revision has been filed by the State against the order dated 03.04.2021, passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand, Division Bench, Haldwani, whereby two Second Appeals filed by M/s S.R.F. Ltd. Kashipur have been allowed. The dispute in the above two Second Appeals was with respect to tax amount of Rs. 95,22,567/- and Rs. 28,024/- respectively. 3. For the Assessment Year 2011-12, vide order dated 27.03.2017 passed under Section 29(4) read with Section 25(7) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, on the self-manufacture of Nylon Chips, the Assessing Officer, in the absence of Form-C assessed the total tax of Rs. 3,14,40,432/-, including Rs. 30,736/-, @ 13.5 % on the sale of Rs. 2,07,481/-, totalling Rs. 2,27,677/-. Against the said order, the Assessee filed an Appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal, by observing that the trader had used the processing chemicals and compounds on raw materials plastic granules, and the product was being sold under a new name/ commodity called Nylon Chips, and there was no Entry with regard to notified Schedule-II of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, and the Assessing Officer had rightly considered that Nylon Chips cannot be considered as plastic granules, and they are not covered by Schedule-II of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, and hence the tax liability fixed on the sale of self-manufactured Nylon Chips, as 13.5%, was rightly done under Section 29(1)(c) of the Act, which allows for re-assessment in case of incorrect rate of tax being applied in the previous assessment. 4. The question before the Tribunal was, whether re-assessment, under Section 29(4) of the Act could be made on the change of opinion, especially keeping in view that the same records had already been scrutinized by the Assessing Authority. The main argument of the respondent before the Tribunal was that, by the Original Order, the department had accepted that Nylon Chips were plastic granules. The main argument of the respondent before the Tribunal was that, by the Original Order, the department had accepted that Nylon Chips were plastic granules. It had already formed an opinion on the nature of the product, and accordingly levied tax, and subsequently, the department changed its stand/ view on the nature of product, and accordingly higher rate of tax was sought to be applied. Section 29(1)(c) of the Act applies to cases, where department has applied the wrong rate of tax to the sale of a product, and desires to apply the correct rate of tax. The opinion of the department, on the nature of the product, remains the same. 5. In the present case, the department has taken a different view by changing the nature of the product, and not on account of wrong application of rates. Re-assessment, in such type of situation, is prohibited. The assessment order was a clear change of opinion, and was not under Section 29(1)(c). 6. The other ground taken by the respondent was that the impugned order was illegal, as Section 29(4) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act does not apply to the present case. In the instant case, the assessment year ended on 31.03.2012, and the period of limitation is to be counted from 31.12.2012. Three years & nine months from that date is 30.09.2016, and the authorization notice dated 27.02.2017, under Section 29(4) of the Act, was issued beyond the period of limitation. The second notice was sent on 29.11.2016, and limitation had expired on 30.09.2016. 7. For seeking the benefit of enlarged period of limitation, under Section 29(4) of the Act, reasons in writing have to be given. Moreover, there is no suppression of facts, or evidence by the respondent, with the intention to evade the payment of VAT. There is no reason given in the authorisation order and the impugned order, justifying the applicability of Section 29(4) of the Act, where the time period of assessment, under the regular Section 29(3), had already expired. 8. Polymer Nylon Chips are classifiable under Entry 83 Schedule-II(B) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, as “Plastic Granules”. The case of the respondent was that it was engaged in engineering plastics business, wherein it manufactures compounded polymers, i.e. Compounded Poly Carbonate (“PC”), and Compounded Poly Butylene Terephthalate (“PBT”). 8. Polymer Nylon Chips are classifiable under Entry 83 Schedule-II(B) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, as “Plastic Granules”. The case of the respondent was that it was engaged in engineering plastics business, wherein it manufactures compounded polymers, i.e. Compounded Poly Carbonate (“PC”), and Compounded Poly Butylene Terephthalate (“PBT”). The raw material used by the respondent for the manufacture of the above goods is imported. 9. It is the further case of the respondent that during the process of manufacturing, undertaken by the respondent, fillers, such as glass fibre, minerals etc. and additives such as lubricants, antioxidant, colour master batches etc. is added to the molten polymer in an extruder. The compounded form of polymer comes out of the extruder in the form of strands, which is cut into small pieces with the help of a granulator. These small pieces are then packed and sold to the customers. The process of manufacture explained in the technical books, pertaining to manufacture of plastic, is the same, as is adopted by the respondent for manufacture of Polymer/ Nylon Chips. Hence, the Polymer/ Nylon Chips manufactured by the respondent are nothing, but “plastic granules”. The respondent has referred to the Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology (CIPET), which has issued a certificate, clearly stating that the products manufactured by the respondent are “plastics”. Copy of this certificate is annexed as Annexure 17. The final and the end product of the respondent’s process of manufacture is a plastic polymer itself. The photographs of the raw material are placed on record as Annexure 19. The primary form of polymer is not as stable, or suitable for commercial use. Therefore, to improve upon its properties, the plastic granules are subjected to the process of compounding. The respondent adds numerous chemicals and other such compounds, which improve the characteristics of these products, which renders them viable for commercial use. These chemicals and compounds include product like Fiber Glass, which improves the tensile strength of the product. Other products include pigments, which adds colour to these products etc. Thus, the nature of the product remains the same i.e. in the form of plastic granules. 10. The Tribunal, thereafter, referred to Entry 83 of Schedule II(B) of the Act, which reads as under : 83. Plastic granules, plastic powder and master batches 5% Schedule-II(B)-83 11. Other products include pigments, which adds colour to these products etc. Thus, the nature of the product remains the same i.e. in the form of plastic granules. 10. The Tribunal, thereafter, referred to Entry 83 of Schedule II(B) of the Act, which reads as under : 83. Plastic granules, plastic powder and master batches 5% Schedule-II(B)-83 11. The Tribunal proceeded to examine the dispute on two points : “(i) Whether the assessment order, which has been passed under Section 29(4) of the Act has become illegal and time barred, or according to the provision. (ii) Whether the Nylon Chips manufactured by the appellant are covered by Entry 83 of Schedule–(II)(B) of the Act, or whether the liability of tax on this article is under any of the provisions of the Act due to not coming under the schedule also, the liability of tax on it will be at the rate of 13.5 percent of the unclassified category.” 12. With respect to the first question, the Tribunal has referred to the provisions of Section 29(7) of the U.P. Commercial Tax Act, which reads as under : “29(7) Where the Commissioner, on his own or on the basis of reasons recorded by the assessing authority, is satisfied that it is just and expedient so to do, authorises the assessing authority in that behalf, such assessment or reassessment may be made within a period of eight years after expiry of assessment year to which such assessment or reassessment relates notwithstanding such assessment or reassessment may involve a change of opinion.” 13. As per the above-said provision, reassessment can be made within a period of 8 years after expiry of the Assessment Year. In the present case, as per the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, Section 29(4) deals with the procedure for doing reassessment, which reads as under : “29. Assessment of Escaped Turnover : (1) ... (2) ... (3) ... (4) If the commissioner on his own or on the basis of reasons recorded by the assessing authority is satisfied that it is just and expedient so to do, he may authorise the assessing authority in that behalf, and then such assessment or reassessment may be made after the expiration of the period aforesaid but not after the expiration of six years form the end of such assessment year, notwithstanding that such assessment or reassessment may involve a change of opinion.” 14. In the present case, the Assessment Year is 2011-12, and before the end of six years, the reassessment order can be passed. The reassessment order has been passed on 27.03.2017, which is before the end of six years of the Assessment Year 2011-12, and hence the reassessment order passed under Section 29(4) of the Act was done within limitation, and this aspect has been affirmed by the Tribunal, and the Appeals, qua this ground, has been rightly dismissed. 15. With respect to the second ground, whether Nylon Chips manufactured by the appellant are covered by Entry 83 of Schedule-(II)(B) of the Act, the Tribunal had proceeded to examine the definition of “Plastics” considered in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chemicals and Fibers of India Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 558 . The Tribunal, in paragraph no. 10 of its order, considered in detail the various definition of “Plastics”. As considered in the case of Chemicals and Fibers of India Ltd. (supra), the definition of “Plastic” is given in Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 18, Books Polymers and Resin 1, Hawley’s Condensed Chemical Dictionary (13th Edition), Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. With respect to the definition of “Granules”, it is stated to be a piece of 2 to 4 millimeters, in which the shape of pebble, on the manufacture of any plastic product, is said to be called Plastic Granules. Nylon is considered by the British Plastics Federation to be a group of plastics in the polyamides and is believed to be used in the manufacture of films and fibres. The work related to the manufacture of plastic polymers is done by them, and the photographs show that they are Plastic Granules only. Plastic is the Granules and the primary form of Raw Polymer Materials. During its manufacturing process, there are many chemicals, compounds, fiber glass, minerals, lubricants, antioxidants, colors etc. added. After mixing the above-said material in the plastic granules, the produced item is Nylon-6. 16. The Tribunal further referred to the British Plastic Federation in respect of Nylon (Polyamide, according to which “Nylon” is defined as under : “The name ‘nylons’ refers to the group of plastics known as polyamides.” 17. Hence, Nylon will come under the plastic group, i.e. Plastics. 16. The Tribunal further referred to the British Plastic Federation in respect of Nylon (Polyamide, according to which “Nylon” is defined as under : “The name ‘nylons’ refers to the group of plastics known as polyamides.” 17. Hence, Nylon will come under the plastic group, i.e. Plastics. The polymer manufactured by the respondent-company has been accepted to be cut into small sizes of 2 to 4 millimeters and sold to the customers. This can be called granules, which was evident from the samples presented by the respondent-company before the Tribunal at the time of hearing. 18. The Tribunal further came to a conclusion that the original article was not changed by adding fillers and additives to increase the strength, or strength of Nylon-6. Hence, with reference to the raw material Nylon-6 by the Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology (CIPET), there is no change in the original material (raw material) in this manufacturing process. Hence, the manufacturing process relates to Nylon-6 of the respondent-company. Even the international organization, i.e. British Plastics Federation has also considered Nylon under the Plastics group. 19. Finally, the Tribunal observed that, even if plastic granules are Nylon Chips used in different industries, but the type of thing is Plastic, which is used as per the requirement. It is not necessary that these two items should be different items due to their use in different industries, and it has been accepted by the department that Nylon Chips have more strength, and is needed for better mechanical and chemical properties of engineering plastics. 20. Finally, the Tribunal held that Nylon Chips will fall under Entry 83 of Schedule II(B) of the Act, and the taxable liability cannot be 13.5%. Hence, the determination of tax liability, as unclassified, was wrong. For the Assessment Year 2011-12, the self-manufactured Nylon Chips in the State and Central are considered to be covered by Entry 83 of Schedule II(B) of the Act for the purpose of tax, and the appeals of the respondent-company was allowed by the Tribunal. 21. After going through the order passed by the Tribunal, the appellant-department have themselves accepted that, with respect to the Plastic Granules, when they are put into procedure by adding fillers and additives, the strength of the plastic becomes better. 21. After going through the order passed by the Tribunal, the appellant-department have themselves accepted that, with respect to the Plastic Granules, when they are put into procedure by adding fillers and additives, the strength of the plastic becomes better. Further, as per the opinion given by the British Plastics Federation, and Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology (CIPET), Nylon refers to a group of Plastics known as Polyamide, and there is no change in the original material (raw material) in this manufacturing process of Nylon-6. Hence, the use of raw material, i.e. Plastic Granules to produce Nylon Chips will not alter the character of Nylon Chips, being a Plastic, and under the British Plastics Federation, Nylon is considered under the Plastics group. 22. There is no substantial question of law, which requires to be considered in the present Revision. The Nylon Chips have been rightly held to be falling in Entry 83 of Schedule II(B) of the Act by the Tribunal. 23. There is no merit in the present Revision, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Consequently, pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.