A. P. MISRA, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the exchange of the affidavits the present writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission in accordance with the Rules of the court. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated March 10, 1993, passed by the Divisional Level Committee, respondent No. 2, and a direction to respondent No. 2 to modify the eligibility certificate in respect of dissolved acetylene gas granting exemption for the entire period of five years with effect from November 6, 1986 in accordance with the notification dated December 26, 1985 which is the date of first sale. Earlier the eligibility certificate was granted for dissolved acetylene gas with effect from November 6, 1986 to July 19, 1988 while petitioner claims it with effect from November 6, 1986 to November 5, 1991. The petitioner was earlier granted eligibility certificate for give years from July 19, 1983 for industrial oxygen and medicinal oxygen. Subsequently the petitioner set up another unit in the same premises for manufacture of dissolved acetylene gas as aforesaid and the said eligibility certificate was granted on November 8, 1989 which is annexure 3 to the petition. The petitioner being aggrieved as against the grant of the said eligibility certificate for the second unit, has filed a review application before the said authority. The claim of the petitioner for granting of eligibility certificate from November 6, 1986 is based on the date of starting of production of the said unit which is October 30, 1986. Since no reason was given for reducing the period of exemption from five years, the petitioner filed the aforesaid review application on February 13, 1990 which is annexure 4 to the petition. This review application was rejected by the Divisional Level Committee vide its order dated October 20, 1990 holding that since the company is the owner of the factory producing dissolved acetylene gas for which neither a separate company has been formed nor a separate partnership has been formed, hence petitioner will not be entitled for exemption for a longer period and cannot be given identity of different unit. Against the said order a civil misc. writ petition was filed which is numbered as Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 190 of 1991 and the same was allowed on November 4, 1992 and the order passed in review application was set aside with a direction to decide the said review application afresh. While filing the application along with the judgment of this Court the petitioner brought to the notice of the said authority that the eligibility certificate had already been granted by the Divisional Level Committee on November 8, 1989 in respect of dissolved acetylene gas for a period with effect from November 6, 1986 to July 19, 1988 whereas his claim was for a larger period of five years. The petitioner thereafter by means of an application filed the detail regarding the query pertaining to registration of the said second unit, namely, for production of the dissolved acetylene gas under the Factories Act. The case of the petitioner is that the first unit manufacturing the oxygen gas was established in the year 1983 for which a registration certificate was obtained in the name of the company, namely, the Gorakhpur Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter in the year 1986 the petitioners' company established another unit for manufacturing the aforesaid dissolved acetylene gas in the same premises though 30 metres away. Before establishing it, in terms of the requirement of the Assistant Director of Factories, a plan was submitted along with the flow chart and the same was communicated to the Assistant Director of Factories for the approval besides construction of the second unit. On December 25, 1986 the Assistant Director of Factories got incorporated in the registration, a new unit plant, i. e. , dissolved acetylene plant but the Divisional Level Committee rejected the review application vide its order dated March 10, 1993 only on the ground that no separate registration had been taken under the Factories Act in respect of the dissolved acetylene gas. The only question, therefore, arises whether the respondent-authority was justified in rejecting the review application on that sole ground. In order to appreciate this controversy explanation to section 4-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act which defines "new unit" is quoted as under : " Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, - (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. " To the similar effect is Explanation to section 4-A which is as amended retrospectively of the U. P. Sales Tax Act and the same is quoted as under : " (1) 'new unit' during the period ending with March 31, 1990 means an industrial undertaking set up by a dealer on or after October 1, 1982 but not later than March 31, 1990, - (a) which is licensed or in respect whereof a letter of intent has been issued or which is registered, permanently or otherwise by the appropriate authority in accordance with any law for the time being in force relating to licensing or registration of industrial undertakings; (b) (i) which is registered under the Factories Act, 1948, or (ii) an application for registration in respect whereof has been made under that Act, or. " The requirement for new unit as per this Explanation (1) (b) is that it should be registered under the Factories Act or application for registration has been made under that Act. But here the respondent-authority insisted for a separate registration certificate to be filed. Such insistence is not in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The only requirement as aforesaid is that the new unit should be registered under the Factories Act. The stand of the respondents is that the Divisional Level Committee gave to the petitioner number of opportunities for filing such certificate but the petition failed. The averment in the counter-affidavit is that it is a condition precedent that it should be registered under the Factories Act separately and independently. This stand of separately and independently is for filing separate registration for new unit. What is required under this Act is that it should be registered under the Factories Act. There is no finding that petitioner's unit is not registered under it. But no separate registration certificate has been filed inspite of time being given. As per communication with Assistant Director of Factories if there is pre-existing factory and the same company sets up another factory in the same premises, no separate registration is required but registration of the second factory is done by endorsement on the registration of the first factory which is said to have been done in this case also. Having considered the arguments and the contentions raised in this regard, we find that it is not in dispute that the petitioner did apply for the registration as a new unit for manufacture of dissolved acetylene gas under the Factories Act. In pursuance of the same the Assistant Director of Factories inspected the premises on April 11, 1986 and directed the petitioner to submit a plan of dissolved acetylene plant building for his approval. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted along with the flow chart, the site plan on May 26, 1986. In pursuance of the same, the Assistant Director of Factories got incorporated in registration, a new unit plant, i. e. , the dissolved acetylene plant building by means of an order dated December 25, 1986. Once this registration was done and the certificate was endorsed, it cannot take away the petitioner's right for grant of eligibility certificate under the U. P. Sales Tax Act. The only requirement of Explanation to section 4-A as aforesaid is the registration under the Factories Act of the new unit. Nowhere it lays down such registration as to be separately and independently. In fact, the petitioner did also apply to the Assistant Director of Factories for issuance of separate registration to which the reply dated June 30, 1993 was sent that under the Factories Act if there is already existing registered factory and if in addition any additional new building is made for another factory under the said Act and Rules, no separate registration is made. In other words, as was done in this case only endorsement is made on the earlier registration. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit is the unit for manufacturing the dissolved acetylene gas has been established in the same campus under the same name as M/s. Gorakhpur Oxygen Private Ltd. , cannot be treated to be a new unit as there existed existing unit manufacturing the industrial oxygen and medicinal oxygen from July 19, 1983. Reliance was placed on the Circular No. Vidhi 3 (1) 4-Sa Ka Mu (85-86) - 3307 Head quarter dated December 28, 1985. Apart from this circular not applying as it refers about extension of existing factory, further this stand is taken for the first time which is not the stand of the Divisional Level Committee which passed the impugned order. Even otherwise as per definition of "new unit" under section 4-A and Explanation as aforesaid, the new unit includes an industrial undertaking as is defined in Explanation of section 4-A which is quoted below : " (ii) on or adjacent to the site of an existing factory or workshop manufacturing any other goods. " So if it is manufacturing different goods even if it is adjacent to the site of the existing factory or workshop it would be a new unit. In the present case the existing unit was manufacturing industrial oxygen and medicinal oxygen while the present unit is manufacturing dissolved acetylene gas which is different goods, hence the stand taken by the respondent is untenable. Accordingly, we find the rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground that this unit is not separately registered under the Factories Act, is no sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order dated March 10, 1993, annexure 12 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 2 will now pass afresh order for granting eligibility certificate in the light of the observations made by us within a period of one month from the date the certified copy of this order is filed before it, petitioner is directed to file the certified copy of this order within two weeks. With the aforesaid observations the present writ petition is allowed with costs. Writ petition allowed. .;