ORDER 1. These appeals have been preferred from an order of the High Court setting aside the decision of the Sales Tax Tribunal with a direction that the Tribunal should decide the appeals filed by the respondent herein afresh after passing a speaking order. 2. The respondent before us manufactures oil and oi1cakes out of cotton seeds purchased by the respondent. Such purchases were made after payment of appropriate sales tax. Relying upon Rule 24-A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975, the respondent filed returns claiming rebate in respect of the tax paid on the cotton seeds which were utilised in the manufacture of oil and oilcakes. The respondent was unsuccessful before the departmental authorities to the extent that the departmental authorities only granted the respondent proportionate rebate on the basis that cotton seeds used for manufacturing both oil and oilcake and only oil was subjected to tax whereas oilcake was not. The matter ultimately came before the Sales Tax Tribunal, The Sales Tax Tribunal came to the conclusion that the decision of the departmental authorities was correct and that the respondent was not entitled to complete rebate as claimed by it. The High Courts reasoning for setting aside the decision of the Tribunal was twofold: (i) that the Tribunals decision a on the respondents case was contrary to an earlier decision of the Tribunal in State of Haryana v. Jyoti Laxman Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd., and (ii) the Tribunal had proceeded on a misreading of the decision of this Court in CST v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.l . 3. The grievance of the Department in these appeals is that the High Court had failed to consider that the facts in Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. easel were distinguishable from the facts of the respondents case and also that the High Court failed to notice that the decision in Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.l turned on an interpretation of the particular rules before the Court, which rules were materially different from Rule 24-A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975. It is the submission of the respondent that the decision in Bharat Petroleum I was on all fours with the respondents case and that it could neither be distinguished in facts or in law. 4. It is the submission of the respondent that the decision in Bharat Petroleum I was on all fours with the respondents case and that it could neither be distinguished in facts or in law. 4. In our view, the High Court was right in setting aside the decision of the Tribunal both on the ground that the Tribunal should have followed its earlier decision and on the question of interpretation of the decision in Bharat Petroleum easel. The appellant had conceded before the High Court that the earlier decision of the Tribunal in Jyoti Laxman Roller. Flour Mills case (supra) covered the facts in the respondents case. Therefore, if the Tribunal was of the view that the earlier decision was wrong it should have referred the matter to a larger Bench. The High Court has not, as appears to be the apprehension of the appellant, decided the question of the applicability of the decision in Bharat Petroleum I to the respondents case either as a matter of fact or as a matter of law. It is for that purpose that the remand was made. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court. The same is affirmed and the appeals are dismissed but without any order as to costs.