A. P. MISRA, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and also the learned Standing Counsel. In view of exchange of affidavits, the present writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission in accordance with the rules of the Court. The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 29th June, 1988, passed by the Divisional Level Committee, Meerut, respondent No. 2 (annexure 14 to the writ petition) and also quashing of order dated 14th March, 1988 (annexure 11 to the writ petition ). Further a direction to respondent No. 2 to grant the exemption/eligibility certificate under section 4-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, to the petitioners in respect of unit No. 2 manufacturing ampicillin trihydrate and ampicillin anhydrous for a period of five years with effect from 29th October, 1983, has been sought. The petitioners earlier made an application under section 4-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act for the grant of exemption in respect of unit No. 2. The said application was rejected for the reason recorded in the impugned order as aforesaid. Aggrieved as against that the petitioners made an application for review of the said order. The Divisional Level Committee, Meerut, after considering the said application, rejected the review application of the petitioners also. Aggrieved as against that, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition for quashing of the aforesaid two orders. The petitioners' contention is that the second unit set up by the petitioners is entitled to exemption under section 4-A being a new unit. It is not in dispute that the said unit has been established on the adjacent site of the factory of the petitioners, which was unit No. 1 manufacturing paracetamol. According to the petitioners, paracetamol is a non-schedule drug under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, while the ampicillin trihydrate and ampicillin anhydrous is a scheduled drug and the manufacturing unit set up by the petitioner-company subsequently for manufacturing the latter machine is entirely a new unit. The review application was dismissed mainly on two grounds : (1) Neither the land, building, machines, raw materials, electric connection nor registration of the factory is in the name of the alleged new unit; (2) Para 10 of the Commissioner's Circular dated 10th March, 1987, annexure 16 to this writ petition is of no help to the petitioners as the petitioners are not using the finished goods of the earlier unit as its raw material. Circular refers that a unit cannot be refused exemption on the ground that the raw material used by the unit is the finished goods of an earlier unit. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the material at length we find so far as the first ground is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is a private limited company. It is under that company the first unit was established for which the registration certificate under the Factories Act was obtained in the name of the said private limited company. The respondent, Divisional Level Committee, Meerut, rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that since the land, building, machines, raw materials, electric connection and registration of the factory, etc. , not being in the name of the new unit, it cannot be said that the unit is a new one. The Divisional Level Committee, Meerut, respondent No. 2 committed an error in coming to that conclusion on the facts of this case. The two units have been established, according to the petitioners, by the said private limited company for which the company purchased the land, machinery, etc. The question is to be examined in terms of the definition of the "new unit" given under section 4-A of the Act. The new unit is defined under explanation (i) of section 4-A (2) of the Act which is quoted hereunder : " (i) 'new unit' means a factory or workshop whether set up by a dealer already having an industrial unit manufacturing the same goods at any other place in the State or an industrial unit manufacturing any other goods on, or adjacent to, the site of an existing factory or workshop; but does not include - (a) any factory or workshop using machinery, accessories or components already used or acquired for use in any other factory or workshop in India, (b) any factory or workshop established on, or adjacent to the site of an existing factory or workshop manufacturing the same goods, or (c) any addition to or extension of an existing factory or workshop, and (ii) 'date of starting production' means the date on which any raw material required for use in the manufacture or packing of the specified goods is purchased for the first time or the date of installation of power connection, where needed, whichever is later. " The definition splits in two parts. The first part defines the new unit means the factory even if it is set up by a dealer already having an industrial unit manufacturing the same goods at any other place in the State then such second unit established by such dealer would be treated to be a new unit. Under second part, an industrial unit manufacturing any other goods on or adjacent to the site of an existing unit is also treated to be a new unit. In the second part of the definition of "new unit" the words are "other goods". Thus if an industrial unit manufactures any other goods even adjacent to the existing site, then the second unit established by the industrial unit would be treated to be a new unit. The approach of the Divisional Level Committee by rejecting the claim of the petitioners only on the ground that the land, building, machines, raw materials, electric connection and registration of the factory being not in the name of the new unit, on the facts of this case, would not be a proper approach. The admitted case is that the land, building, etc. , are all in the name of the petitioner-company which established both the aforesaid two units. The first existing unit was manufacturing paracetamol and the second unit is now being set up by the same company. Thus both the units are under the ownership of the petitioner-company. Mere non-mention of the name of the petitioners' unit separately over the land, building, etc. , would not disentitle the petitioner from the grant of exemption. Authority could not disentitle a dealer from exemption, if such dealer or unit does not fall within the four corners of section 4-A of the Act or any rule. Under section 4-A the authority has to consider first whether the goods which is being manufactured is the same as earlier and whether it is being established at any other place in the State or not; secondly if the goods manufactured is different than earlier then even if it is adjacent to the site of the existing unit, it would be treated to be a new unit. Admittedly we find that the Divisional Level Committee misdirected itself in disentitling the petitioners for grant of exemption for the reasons recorded therein by it. The first unit was established by the petitioner-company for manufacturing paracetamol while the second unit is established for the manufacture of ampicillin trihydrate and ampicillin anhydrous. By mere looking to the two drugs manufactured by the petitioner-company, the first one being paracetamol which is an analgesic and the second medicine manufactured is antibiotics the two medicines cannot be treated to be the same goods. The learned Standing Counsel urged that since both are medicines and, therefore, the manufacturing of two medicines would not make it to be different goods. Reliance was also placed that since the taxing entry is a medicine covered all the medicines and, therefore, the two drugs falling under the same head cannot be treated to be different goods under the U. P. Sales Tax Act. The argument in our considered opinion is fallacious. The taxing entry may be of various goods though falling under the same head for taxing purposes. Therefore, the contention that since paracetamol and ampicillin trihydrate and ampicillin anhydrous falling in the same taxing entry would be same goods cannot be accepted. "goods" have been defined under section 2 (d) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act to be of a very wide amplitude and in view of the said definition also the two drugs manufactured by the petitioner, paracetamol in the first unit and ampicillin trihydrate and ampicillin anhydrous in the second unit cannot be treated to be the same goods for the purpose of definition of "new unit" falling under section 4-A of the Act. Coming to the second ground regarding para 10 of the aforesaid Commissioner's Circular, this circular is more in the nature of clarification. The first part of paragraph 10 clarifies and guides the authority in considering the grant of exemption under section 4-A of the Act. It merely states that in case any finished goods of one unit is utilised by the second new unit as raw material then on that account the second unit cannot be refused exemption. This has been made only to make the point clear to the authority concerned considering the grant of exemption. This circular is not provision of an Act or rule either to include or exclude any one from the purview of provision of relevant section if otherwise it is not there. On the facts of this case the refusal could only be made in case the authority comes to the conclusion that the goods manufactured is the same goods. However, in the present case the finding has been recorded by the Divisional Level Committee that the case of the petitioners does not fall within first part of paragraph 10 as the petitioner is not using any finished goods of earlier unit as raw material of later unit. First part of paragraph 10 merely clarified even if it would not disentitle the later unit to be treated as new unit on this ground. But this does not mean when a unit is not using as raw material the finished goods of earlier unit the later unit would be disentitled for exemption. It is clear that the Divisional Level Committee committed an error and further the said Committee should have examined the definition of "new unit" and should have come to the conclusion either way by following the provision as we have indicated above. Second part of paragraph 10 of the circular also makes it clear that merely a goods falling under one taxing entry would not disentitle the second unit of being refused to grant exemption under section 4-A of the Act, which is in consonance with interpretation given by us above. In view of the aforesaid facts and the finding recorded by us we find that the Divisional Level Committee committed an error in recording the said finding which is against the provisions of law and has not applied the said provision properly. In view of this, the impugned order dated 29th June, 1988 (annexure 14 to the writ petition) is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. The case is sent back to the Divisional Level Committee to decide the review application afresh keeping in view of the declaration made by us in this judgment, so far the petition is concerned, in accordance with law. We further direct the Divisional Level Committee to dispose of the said review application within a period of three months from the date, the certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority. The petitioners will produce the copy of the judgment made by us today within three weeks from today before the said authority. Until disposal of the said review application afresh further proceedings for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1988-89 both under the U. P. and Central Sales Tax Acts pending before the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) VII, Sales Tax, Ghaziabad shall remain stayed. With the aforesaid observation the present writ petition is being disposed of finally. Petition allowed. .;