JUDGMENT
Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical)
1. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of four appeals before him including this one.
2. The counsel for the appellant rightly points out that the issue that was considered by the Assistant Commissioner in the order that was appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) is very different from the issue that has been considered in the other three orders passed by him. The issue in the order leading to the present appeal, was the includibility of the cost of printing in the assessable value of layflat to be manufactured by the appellant. The issue in the other three orders were different-eligibility of entry number 57 of the Table to notification 4/97 to the plant bags that the appellant manufactured, and whether the manufacturer entitled to pay duty on an intermediate product notwithstanding they are exempted by notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) order therefore does not dispose of the appeal filed against the order in question.
3. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals) shall dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.