https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163768 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. en-us Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Nov 2014 13:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163768 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. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163768