B.N. Sapru, J.
1. This revision has been filed by M/s. Kishan Krishi Yantra Udyog, Kanpur, and pertains to the assessment year 1975-76.
2. The assessee carries on the business of manufacture and sale of paddy dehusker, rice polisher, winnower and other agricultural implements. The assessee has claimed exemption from sales tax for his sales of paddy dehusker, rice polisher amounting to Rs. 48,965 in view of Notification No. ST-2783/X- 902(60)-59 dated 1st June, 1963, as amended by Notification No. ST-351/X- 902(60)-59 dated 5th February, 1968. The exemption was claimed on the ground that the assessee-firm was manufacturing goods for Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Bombay, for the manufacture of paddy dehusker, rice polisher and grader-cum-winnower. It also claimed that its sale of winnower, the trade name of which was ghuria chalna, was manually operated and was an agricultural implement.
3. The Sales Tax Officer declined to give exemption to the assessee. The assessee appealed. In appeal the assessee was unsuccessful in this regard. The Sales Tax Tribunal also denied exemption which was in respect of the sales of the aforesaid commodities.
4. The Sales Tax Tribunal held that the mini rice machines sold for Rs. 48,965 could not be granted exemption because only such goods are exempted from taxation under Notification No. ST-2783/X-902(60)-59 dated 1st June, 1963, which are sold by an institution in Uttar Pradesh certified by the All India Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Bombay. It found that the certificate produced by the assessee has been given by the Khadi Gramodyog Commission, Lucknow.
5. As regards the sales of ghuria chalnas also known as churia chalnas, the Tribunal found that dust and foreign elements not connected with the produce are sieved with the help of chalnas. On this basis it found that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Notification No. ST-3297/X-950(1)-58 dated 9th June, 1964. It further found that the chalnas had not been sold by the assessee to the farmers for utilisation in agricultural operations but to Krishi Utpadan Samitis for sieving dust, etc. It found that these chalnas were commonly used by dal and flour mills for sieving dust and foreign material from food-grains. It went on to hold that the assessee has failed to satisfy that chalnas sold by him were being commonly used for agricultural purposes and were directly connected with agricultural operations and the lower authorities have rightly not exempted them. It also found that the burden was on the assessee to show that it was exempt from tax. It held that the assessee had failed to prove that the goods came within the purview of the notification granting exemption.
6. Aggrieved, the assessee has come in revision. The learned counsel for the assessee has drawn my attention to a decision in the case of Refugee Trunk and Bucket Industrial Corporation Society Ltd. v. Commissioner, Agra Division 1973 UPTC 524. The facts of that case were that the appellant was a co-operative society which manufactured trunks, buckets, etc. In that case a certificate had been issued by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Lucknow, and was to the following effect :
This is to certify that M/s. Refugee Trunk and Bucket Industrial Corporation Society Ltd., Ratna Ashram, Lohamandi, Agra-2, is an institution in and has been assisted as per scheduled pattern of Khadi and Village Industries Commission through U. P. State Khadi and Village Industries Board and recognised by Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Bombay, for carpentry and blacksmithy unit and is therefore entitled for exemption from levy of sales tax in terms of U. P. Government Finance (A & St.) Department Notification No. ST-2783/X-902(60)-59 dated 1st June, 1963.
The above certificate has been issued from the year 1963-64 to 1970-71.
7. The High Court noticed that the certificate had been issued by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Lucknow. It also noticed that on 31st October, 1964, the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Bombay, sent a letter to the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P., informing him that the Commission has authorised the Commission's Director at Lucknow to do the work of issuing certificates within the State of U. P. and to issue instructions to the District Sales Tax Officer to recognise the certificates issued by the Commission's Director at Lucknow for purposes of claiming exemption from sales tax provided under the aforesaid notification. It found that it was in consequence of this authorisation that the Director of Commission at Lucknow issued the certificate certifying that the appellant was entitled to exemption from-sales tax. The High Court held that in these circumstances, the assessee was entitled to exemption.
8. In view of the aforesaid' Division Bench, the Tribunal was in error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to exemption on the ground that the certificate had not been issued by the Commission from Bombay but from Lucknow.
9. The learned standing counsel has very strongly urged that the certificate in the instant case which has been issued by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Lucknow, which stood to the following effect:
This is to certify that M/s, Kishan Krishi Yantra Udyog, 64, Moti Bhawan, Collectorganj, Kanpur, was our recognised fabricators for the manufacturing and supplying of paddy dehusker, rice polisher and grader-cum-winnower for P.C.P.I. Industries from 1971 to 31st March, 1981.
10. Was not a certificate on the basis of which the assessee was entitled to claim exemption.
11. The relevant notification dated 1st June, 1963, No. ST-2783/X-902(60)-59 runs as follows :
In exercise of the powers under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (U. P. Act No. XV of 1948), the Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to exempt, with effect from 1st June, 1963, the sale of goods by the institutions in Uttar Pradesh certified by the All India Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Bombay, from the payment of tax under the aforesaid Act.
12. The learned standing counsel argues that the certificate which has been given by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer to the assessee is only to the effect that the assessee was the recognised fabricator for the manufacture and supply of paddy dehusker, rice polisher and grader-cum-winnower for P.C.P.I. Industries. The certificate does not grant an exemption.
13. It is only in relation to the goods that had been supplied.
14. Sri Bharatji Agarwal, appearing on behalf of the assessee, has urged that under Section 4(1)(b) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, the provisions are as follows :-
No tax under this Act shall be payable on the sale or purchase of any goods by the All India Spinners' Association or Gandhi Ashram, Meerut, and their branches or such other persons or class of persons as specified by the State Government may by notification from time to time exempt.
15. His argument is that the notification of 1st June, 1963, specifies the sale of goods by the institution in Uttar Pradesh certified by the All India Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Bombay, and are exempt from taxation. He further urges that the way the learned standing counsel wants 'to interpret the notification would lead to the position that in the notification after the words 'All India Khadi and Village Industries Commission', the words 'as exempt from taxation' would have to be read in. He submits that adding words to the notification is not permissible. As far as this argument is concerned, I am in agreement with him that words cannot be read into in the notification. All that is required for exemption is a certificate from the Khadi Commission.
16. The other part of the argument of the learned standing counsel is that the certificate merely says that the assessee is the recognised fabricator for manufacturing and supplying of paddy dehusker, rice polisher and grader-cum-winnower for P. C. P. I. Industries and nothing further and is not a certificate as contemplated by the 1st June, 1963, notification.
17. It is significant that the nature of the certificate to be issued by the All India Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Bombay, has not been specified in the notification. When the Commission states that the assessee was the recognised fabricator of the Commission it was in effect granting the certificate required by the 1st June, 1963, notification. The Khadi and Village Industries Commission has been set up under the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act, 1956. Its function are to be found in Section 15 of the Act as under :
Among other functions, Section 15(2)(E) provides that it is to maintain or assist in the maintenance of the institutions for the development of Khadi and Village Industries.
18. And under Clause (h) it is provided :
For ensuring the genuineness of and for granting certificates to producers of, or dealers in, khadi or the products of any village industry.
19. It is thus clear that the certificate under Section 15(2)(h) is issued to ensure the genuineness of the product of village industries. Reading the notification of 1st June, 1963, with the aforesaid provision, the nature of the certificate contemplated becomes clear. The certificate shows that the assessee's product is a genuine product of a village industry. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the assessee's sale of mini rice machines amounting to Rs. 48,965 were liable to tax and not exempt from taxation.
20. As regards the sales of churia chalnas also known as ghuria chalnas manufactured by the assessee, the Tribunal found that the chalnas had not been sold by the assessee to the farmers for utilisation in agricultural operations but Krishi Mandi Samitis who used them. It further found that the chalnas were commonly used by dal and flour mills for sieving dust and foreign material from the foodgrains. The Assistant Commissioner had found that the assessee had mainly sold the chalnas to the Krishi Mandi Samitis who purchased the grain from the farmers. It appears that the rinding of the Tribunal that the chalnas were sold only to Krishi Mandi Samitis is not strictly correct. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) had also found that in the chalna there was a stand and netting and as a result of its operation, pure grain remained on top and the residue fell and it was not operated by machine but by man. The exemption is granted under Notification No. ST-911/X dated 31st March, 1956. The notification runs as follows :
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, as amended from time to time, and in supersession of all previous notifications granting any exemption tinder the said' section relating to any persons or class of persons, or goods or class of goods, not being goods specified in List I below, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to direct that with effect from 1st April, 1956, the goods specified in List II hereunder shall alone be exempt from payment of tax.
21. List I runs as follows:
(1) Raw hides and skins.
(2) Cotton waste.
22. Entry I of List II runs as follows :
Agricultural implements worked by human or animal power, namely, khurpi (hoe), dibbler, spade, hansiya (sickle), garden knife, axe, gandasa, chaff-cutter, shears, secateurs, rake, shovel, ploughs and accessories thereof, water lifting leather buckets (pur and mhot) and accessories thereof and rehat and persian wheel and accessories thereof.
23. The items manufactured by the assessee are not mentioned in the notification. This notification was considered by a Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bishram Tiwari 1971 UPTC 225. The Division Bench held that the notification shows that the intention was to divide all the agricultural implements into two divisions, viz., (i) the implements driven by human or animal power and (ii) mechanised implements or those driven otherwise than by human and animal power. It has further found that the idea seems to have been to exempt all agricultural implements driven by human or animal power and to tax only those agricultural implements which are worked otherwise than by human or animal power.
24. This case was followed in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Steel Engineering Co. 1978 UPTC 675. In this case it was held that sugarcane' planters and pulled by bullocks were agricultural implements and were exempt from taxation under the notification.
25. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the fact that a particular implement is not mentioned in the notification is not decisive of the matter and what has to be decided in each case is whether the implement in question is or is not an agricultural implement.
26. The assessee had filed a copy of letter from the Assistant Agricultural Engineer, Research Testing and Training Centre, C. S. A. University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur, addressed to the Deputy Director of Industries, Directorate of Industries, Kanpur, which runs as follows :
Sir, Kindly refer to your letter No. 5549-55/6 dated 17th July, 1979, addressed to Director, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur, regarding comments about ghuriya chalna for inclusion into the category of agricultural equipments for sales tax exemption. The equipment has been seen is manually operated and is to be used for agricultural operations of winnowing and cleaning of goods. The equipment comes under the category of equipments included in the list of exempted goods.
27. The assessee also filed a letter from the Government of India, Ministry of Industrial Development and Company Affairs, Small Industries Service Institute, Kanpur, to the Director of Industries, U. P., Kanpur, dated 29th May, 1979, which runs as follows :-
We are in receipt of a letter No. 117/495 dated 23rd May, 1979, from a leading manufacturer of agricultural implements, a copy of which is enclosed herewith. Besides agricultural implements they manufacture chalna a catalogue of which is also enclosed for your reference. This chalna is used by farmers for cleaning their seeds and grains.
We are satisfied with the request of M/s. Kishan Krishi Yantra Udyog, 64, Moti Bhawan, Collectorganj, Kanpur, that the chalna may be considered as agricultural implement like other agricultural implements, abstract list of which is attached herewith for reference, is seemed genuine and is recommended for further necessary action.
28. The learned standing counsel stressed the fact that the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee sells these chalnas to Krishi Utpadan Samitis who used them for cleaning grains. It has also found that these chalnas are used by flour mills for sieving dust material from foodgrains. He submits that it is a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence and cannot be interfered with in this revision. The learned counsel for the assessee contends that in the first place the Tribunal failed to notice that the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) found on the basis of the report of the Sales Tax Commissioner that the chalnas manufactured by the assessee were mainly sold to Krishi Utpadan Samitis but not exclusively sold and in the second place he urges that what has to be seen is what was the purpose of the implement manufactured by the assessee. The learned counsel urges that the expert bodies have recognised the assessee's chalnas as agricultural implements and the fact that some of the chalnas are used by the Krishi Utpadan Samiti would not make the chalnas manufactured by the assessee as any other thing other than the agricultural implement. In this connection, he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh  19 STC 469 (SC). The question in that case was whether charcoal was included in the word 'coal' specified in entry 1 of Part III of Schedule II to the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The Supreme Court observed that 'the result emerging from these decisions is that while construing the word 'coal' in entry I of Part III of Schedule II, the test that could be ' applied is what would be the meaning which persons dealing with coal and consumers purchasing it as fuel would give to that word. A sales tax statute, being one levying a tax on goods, must, in the absence of a technical term or a term of science or art, be presumed to have used an ordinary term as 'coal' according to the meaning ascribed to it in common parlance. Viewed from that angle, both a merchant dealing in coal and a consumer wanting to purchase it would regard coal not in its geological sense but in the sense as ordinarily understood and would include charcoal in the term 'coal'. It is only when the question of the kind or variety of coal would arise that a distinction would be made between coal and charcoal; otherwise, both of them would in ordinary parlance as also in their commercial sense be spoken as 'coal' '. He submits that the ghuria chalna made by the assessee would be commonly understood as an agricultural implement. The Tribunal found that the assessee had failed to show that the chalnas were commonly used for agricultural purposes and they were directly connected, with agricultural operations. What the Tribunal failed to notice was that the material produced by the assessee as also the high authorities of the Government as well as the exports of Chandra Shekhar Azad University had treated the chalnas manufactured by the assessee as agricultural implements. It is, therefore, necessary that the Tribunal again goes into the question as to whether the ghuria chalnas manufactured by the assessee are or not the agricultural implements.
29. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. The Tribunal will accept the certificate granted by the Khadi and Village Gramodyog Commission to the assessee as sufficient compliance to Notification No. ST-2783 dated 1st June, 1963, and the assessee would be entitled to exemption. The Tribunal will further examine the question as to whether the ghuria chalnas made by the assessee are exempt from taxation under notification No. 911-dated 31st March, 1956, as amended from time to time afresh in accordance with law. The parties will bear their own costs.