JUDGMENT A. K. Shrivastava, J. The only submission which has been put forth by the learned Senior Counsel is that Eligibility Certificate was issued to Petitioner on the goods manufactured i.e. Vanaspati Ghee by Petitioner and the raw material and incidental goods which include different kinds of Containers. In this regard, learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited my attention to Item No. 14 of Annexure P-4. It has also been put forth by him that by impugned order (Annexure R-V) dated 19.1.1989 the said facility has been withdrawn and has been deleted w.e.f. 1.3.1982. Learned Counsel has further invited my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Birla Jute and Industries Ltd. v. State of M.P. & Another (2000) 119 STC 14 in which in para 4, the order of this Court in the case of K.P. Enterprises v. Divisional Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Raipur (1996) 102 STC 483 (MP) is quoted. For ready-reference, I may quote the said para which read thus : ".................. However, one thing is clear that the Eligibility Certificate for Exemption from tax was given by the Committee on 19.4.1990 and the same has been withdrawn/revoked by Order dated 7.3.1991 with effect from 19.4.1990. This cannot be permitted because it will amount to causing greater hardship to the Assessee because the Assessee has acted upon the Eligibility Certificate issued by the Competent Authority and on the basis of the appreciation of facts, the Authority has now changed its opinion and wants to withdraw the Certificate. If the Authority wants to withdraw the Eligibility Certificate, then the effectivity of withdrawal shall be with effect from the date of order and it cannot be made retrospective. To this extent submission of learned Counsel is correct that the order of withdrawal of eligibility cannot be given retrospective effect and the Petitioner is entitled for the relief to this extent". The Apex Court in Para 8 of the above said decision held which read thus : "8. There was, in our view, no justification for reviewing the said certificate long after the term thereof had expired and, therefore, long after its benefit had been availed by the Appellant or at all. The view taken by the High Court in the judgment to which we have referred to is correct, and is borne out by the decisions of this Court aforementioned". The view taken by the High Court in the judgment to which we have referred to is correct, and is borne out by the decisions of this Court aforementioned". On the basis of the decision of the Apex Court it can safely be said that the cancellation of 'like different kind of containers' under the head raw material and incidental goods the deletion cannot take place with retrospective effect i.e. from 1.3.82. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned Dy. Advocate General that the Sales Tax Officer visited the place of Petitioner and found that till 1.3.1982 manufacture of Hydrogenated Oil, Soap and the Container (Tin) did not take place. However, on enquiry it was gathered that the tins are going to be manufactured after 1982 and these goods will be manufactured in future and thus on this ground Annexure R-V dated 19.1.1989 was issued. On bare perusal of Eligibility Certificate (Annexure P-4) it is revealed that at item No. 14 different kind of Containers' is included as raw material and the. Certificate of Eligibility was valid from 1.3.1982 to 28.2.1989. Thus, according to me, in view of the decision of Birla Jute and Industries Ltd. (supra) there cannot be any deletion from the retrospective effect. The Petition is allowed. The impugned Order Annexure R-V dated 19.1.1989 is hereby accordingly set aside. The security amount, if any deposited, may be refunded to the Petitioner. No costs.