Eligibility certificate review vs fresh exemption claim required comparative product analysis before jurisdiction could be determined.

The Tribunal's order setting aside the amended eligibility certificate could not stand because it failed to examine whether the later application was a review of the earlier certificate or a fresh exemption claim based on diversification. The record required a comparative assessment of the earlier and proposed products to determine whether they were of the same character or materially different. That classification also governed which authority was competent to deal with the application, including whether the matter fell within Rule 25(3)(c) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948 or required consideration as a fresh grant. The matter was therefore remanded for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order setting aside the amended eligibility certificate required interference and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration after examining the nature of the goods and the authority competent to deal with the application.

Analysis: The controversy turned on whether the later application was a review of the earlier eligibility certificate or a fresh claim for exemption based on diversification. The record showed a dispute as to whether the goods manufactured earlier and the goods proposed after diversification were of the same character or were materially different. The Tribunal had not undertaken a proper comparative examination of the earlier and proposed products. The question of the committee's power also depended on whether the matter was truly a review under Rule 25(3)(c) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948, or a fresh grant requiring consideration by the authority having jurisdiction on the date of the application.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order could not stand as it lacked the necessary examination of the relevant issues, and the matter was required to be reconsidered afresh.

---