JUDGMENT NARAYAN SHUKLA, J. - Heard Mr. Bharatji Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S. M. K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Sanjeev Shankhdhar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite party. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated January 9, 2004, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow for setting aside the order of appeal. The Tribunal has cancelled the order dated March 4, 2003, passed by the Divisional Level Committee. Briefly the facts of the case are that the revisionist set up the equipment and facilities for processing of edible oil seeds, namely, soyabean seed, mustard seed, sunflower seed, mahua seed, etc., for the manufacture of soyabean oil, mustard oil, sunflower, mahua oil and de-oiled extraction of soyabean, mustard, sunflower oil, mahua and started production from February 23, 1998. For grant of eligibility certificate under rule 25 of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948, the revisionist submitted an application in the prescribed form and also made some additional capital investment. The Divisional Level Committee by means of order dated October 16, 2000 issued eligibility certificate granting exemption from payment of tax for a period of ten years with effect from April 21, 1998 to April 20, 2008 or till the maximum investment of Rs. 1,95,00,000 lasts, whichever was earlier. After receipt of the said eligibility certificate the revisionist moved a review application dated November 10, 2000 with the averments that the eligibility certificate has been granted in respect of the additional fixed capital investment treating it as an expansion, while the goods which are being manufactured are being of different nature; hence the eligibility certificate should have been granted treating it as a case of diversification, upon which a report was called by the Joint Director of Industries, Faizabad from the Department and a survey was also made by the Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, Barabanki. The Assistant Commissioner submitted a report that earlier the revisionist/applicant was only manufacturing rice bran oil and thereafter by establishing the new machinery, soyabean oil are being manufactured for which different machinery has been installed involving a different manufacturing process and the oil produced is an edible oil and a different commodity than what was being manufactured earlier. The Assistant Commissioner submitted a report that earlier the revisionist/applicant was only manufacturing rice bran oil and thereafter by establishing the new machinery, soyabean oil are being manufactured for which different machinery has been installed involving a different manufacturing process and the oil produced is an edible oil and a different commodity than what was being manufactured earlier. The review application was allowed by the Divisional Level Committee and an amended eligibility certificate was granted on March 4, 2003 under the scheme of diversification with effect from first date of production of diversified goods on February 23, 1998. The Commissioner, Trade Tax, challenged the order of the Divisional Level Committee in appeal under section 10 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 before the Trade Tax Tribunal. The Trade Tax Tribunal by means of order dated January 9, 2004 has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Divisional Level Committee dated March 4, 2003. The revisionist/applicant has challenged the order of the Tribunal on different grounds, inter alia, that the Tribunal has committed manifest error of law, by relying upon the decision rendered in the case of Arora Box Industries, Varanasi v. Divisional Level Committee, Varanasi [1993] UPTC 204, in holding that the Divisional Level Committee has no power to review the order, as the power for granting eligibility certificate for exemption under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act is vested only with the Commissioner of Trade Tax, though the same is not applicable in the present case. It has further been submitted that the Trade Tax Tribunal has committed an error in holding that in respect of the eligibility certificate having been granted on October 16, 2000, the revisionist has not taken any step for a period of two years by completely overlooking the fact that the revisionist/applicant has filed the application within one month from the date of receipt of the order and had been regularly pursuing this matter. On merit also it has been submitted that there is no dispute that the goods which were being produced earlier by the applicant were entirely different goods and what are being produced with effect from February 23, 1998 are goods of different nature. On merit also it has been submitted that there is no dispute that the goods which were being produced earlier by the applicant were entirely different goods and what are being produced with effect from February 23, 1998 are goods of different nature. The revisionist has also relied upon a case of Malviya Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in [1991] 83 STC 436 (All); [1991] UPTC 830 and Gorakhpur Oxygen Private Limited v. State of U.P. reported in [1997] 104 STC 470 (All); [1995] UPC 841, in which it has been held that if the unit is manufacturing different goods even if it is adjacent to the site of the existing factory or workshop it would be a new unit and accordingly the applicant is entitled for exemption under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The opposite party has contested the matter by way of filing the counter-affidavit with the averments that the Trade Tax Tribunal has not committed any error in relying upon the decision of Arora Box Industries v. Divisional Level Committee, Varanasi reported in [1993] UPTC 204, in which after vesting the power with the Commissioner, the Divisional Level Committee exercised its power of review in its earlier order and the Division Bench of this court held that the order passed by the Divisional Level Committee is not sustainable and quashed the same. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel further invited the attention of this court towards rule 25(3)(c), which is reproduced hereunder : "25. Grant of eligibility Certificate. - (1) and (2) ... (3)(c) If the application of a unit is rejected such unit may submit an application for review to the same committee, within 30 days of the receipt of information of such rejection. The said committee after examining the relevant records and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the unit of being heard, shall decide the review application." In the light of the aforesaid provisions he submitted that the application for review was permissible on the event of rejection of the application, whereas in the present case the application was allowed by granting eligibility certificate. However, by producing the goods of diversification the revisionist further submitted an application before the same committee for granting eligibility certificate for exemption under section 4A, whereas on that date the Divisional Level Committee has lost its authority to grant such certificate, but it entertained the said application treating the same as an application for review and granted the fresh eligibility certificate, which is not permissible in the eye of law. The petitioner has set up a case that earlier he was producing rice bran oil and by means of an application submitted on August 12, 1998 he claimed exemption under the diversification of unit for production of edible oils from soyabean seed, mustard seed, sunflower seed, neem seed, mahua seed. The eligibility list dated October 16, 2000 shows that the eligibility certificate was not granted for non-essential oil categorised as under : 1. Rice bran oil grade (I). 2. Rice bran oil grade (II). 3. Solvent neem oil. 4. Solvent mustard oil. 5. Solvent soya oil. 6. Solvent mahua oil, etc. 7. Solvent and expander sunflower and mustard oil. De-oiled rice bran and de-oiled cakes of; 1. Neem. 2. Mustard. 3. Soya. 4. Mahua. 5. Sunflower, etc. And again after diversification the goods are to be produced as soyabean oil, mustard oil, sunflower oil, neem oil, mahua oil and deoiled extraction of soyabean, mustard, sunflower, neem, mahua, etc. From perusal of the order, I find that though the Tribunal has discussed that it is not a case of diversification, but it is a case of expansion, the Divisional Level Committee has committed error in making amendment in the eligibility certificate by granting exemption to the revisionist/applicant, but it does not discuss the nature of goods, which were produced under the first eligibility certificate and the goods which were required to be produced after the permission of diversification. To ascertain as to whether the nature of goods produced and are to be produced is the same or different, it is necessary to discuss the articles as the revisionist has set up that earlier in the first eligibility certificate he was producing non-edible oil, i.e., the rice-bran oil and after diversification he started production of edible oils, which are all together different from the earlier goods produced by it. So far as the exercise of power by the Divisional Level Committee is concerned, if it is a case of review then no doubt under rule 25(3)(c) the same Divisional Level Committee, which has granted the earlier certificate, has the right to review its order, but if it is a case of fresh grant, then the authority to whom the jurisdiction is vested on the date of application shall have the right to entertain the same and it shall also be cleared after discussion on the nature of goods, for which the eligibility certificate was granted and has been asked to grant. The Tribunal shall also discuss the comparative specification of the goods. Under the circumstances, I feel it appropriate to remand the matter to the Trade Tax Tribunal to consider it afresh after providing opportunity of hearing and pass a fresh order in the matter. Therefore, I hereby set aside the order dated January 9, 2004, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in Appeal No. 77 of 2003 and remand the matter to the Trade Tax Tribunal for fresh decision, in view of the observations made hereinabove. The revision is allowed in the aforesaid terms.