The Court:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing the appellant’s appeal from income tax assessments for the 1968 and 1970 tax years. That appeal was heard in the Trial Division on common evidence with the appeal by

Heald, J:—We are all of the opinion that the learned trial judge correctly concluded that the appellant’s antiknock compound cannot be considered to be a “petroleum product’’ as that term is used in paragraph 83(A)(3)(a) of the Income Tax

Provost, J:—La Cour est saisie d’une requête pour ordonnance en vertu de l’article 232(4)c) de la Loi canadienne de l’impôt sur le revenu*. [1]

Addy, J:—These three actions were, on consent, ordered to be tried together on common evidence.

Morden, JA:—The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue appeals, and Usarco Limited cross-appeals, from an order of Mr Justice Linden made on August 21, 1979 quashing, in part, an order of His Honour Judge Scime

Grant, DJ:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff pursuant to subsection 172(2) of the Income Tax Act in respect of assessments of its returns for the years 1975 and 1976 made by the Minister of National Revenue dated August 22,

Morden, JA:—In this appeal we are primarily concerned with the proper interpretation of subsection 231(4) of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, c 148 as enacted by SC 1970-71-72, c 63 section 1. This provision and subsection (5),

The Court:—The submissions made on behalf of the appellant have not pursuaded us that there was any error in law in the result reached by the Federal Court of Appeal. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

McMeekin, DCJ:—The corporate and individual accused are jointly charged as follows:

Addy, J:—These two cases were, on consent, ordered to be tried together on common evidence. Both appeals involve income tax assessments for the 1975 taxation year of the plaintiffs. The facts are really not in issue.