1. I.A. No. 118667 of 2021 is allowed. The Appellant is permitted to change its name in the cause title from M/s. Ashoka Metal Decor Pvt. Ltd. to AMD Industries Limited and the I.A. is accordingly disposed of.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Trade Tax Revision No. 275 of 2004 by which the High Court has dismissed the said revision application preferred by the Appellant herein and has confirmed the order passed by the learned Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") and the Assessing Officer holding that for the goods manufactured, the Appellant is not entitled to the exemption Under Section 4-A(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act"), the manufacturer - original revisionist has preferred the present appeal.
3. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:
3.1. The Appellant herein established the unit for manufacture of "Spun Line Crown Cork" in the year 1986, used as one of the packing materials of the 'glass bottles'. The Appellant submitted an application on 24.05.2000 for granting eligibility certificate Under Section 4-A of the Act before the Divisional Level Committee for manufacture of "double Lip Dry Blend Crown" under the program of diversification.
3.2. On the basis of the joint spot inquiry consisting of two members committee, the Appellant was granted the eligibility certificate under 'modernisation' instead of eligibility certificate under 'diversification' scheme.
3.3. At this stage, it is required to be noted that if the goods manufactured would have been considered as a new product under the diversification scheme, the Appellant was entitled to the exemption Under Section 4-A(5) of the Act. The Appellant was denied the exemption Under Section 4-A(5) of the Act. The Appellant preferred an appeal Under Section 10 of the Act against the order dated 10.12.2003 passed Under Section 4-A of the Act before the Trade Tax Tribunal contending inter alia that the process of manufacture and the machineries used for both the products (existing and the new) are different.
3.4. It was also the case on behalf of the Appellant that the existing (old) product cannot be manufactured on the new installed machine and vice-a-versa, the new product cannot be manufactured on the old machines. It was also the case on behalf of the Appellant that one of the major raw materials for both the products are not the same and that ultimate use of both the products are different.
3.5. It was submitted that under the term "modernization" only those units fall, which by the modern technical produce the same goods and the scheme of "modernization" do not apply on the units which produce different goods.
3.6. The appeal preferred by the Appellant came to be........