ORDER
K.K. Usha, J. (President)
1. When the application for Stay came up for hearing, it was agreed by both the sides that the appeal itself can be disposed of.
2. On going through the order passed by the appellate authority we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the different issues raised in the appeal in the manner in which the appellate authority should consider points raised in the appeal. We find that he has not even entered findings in respect of the issues. The consideration which is confined to the last paragraph of the order is not at all satisfactory. He has not even referred to the claim raised by the appellant regarding deduction of regular trade discount from depot to the dealer. Apart from observing that the turnover tax and sales tax are different, the appellate authority has not looked into the contentions raised by the assessee claiming that what has been paid was turnover tax and whatever claimed by them is also deduction of the turnover tax paid by them. The price lists submitted by the appellant which reflects these contentions raised by the appellants are not even referred to by the appellate authority. In view of the unsatisfactory manner of disposing the appeal, we direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and pass fresh orders on the issues raised in the appeal.
3. We, therefore, set aside the order impugned and remand the matter for fresh disposal on merits, as stated above.