ORDER
G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. Case called. None appeared on behalf of the appellants. There is no adjournment request. In these circumstances, the case is dismissed for default in appearance under Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
2. Later on Shri Harbans Singh appeared and requested for restoration of the appeal which has been dismissed earlier. He submitted that he could not be present when the case was called as he was held up in another Bench. In view of the circumstances explained by him, the earlier order is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number.
3. Arguing for the appellants Shri Harbans Singh submitted that dispute is in respect of ring manufactured and capitively used in tyres for animal driven vehicles. Referring to the reply he said that a specific plea has been taken that items are not marketable and they are not known in the market. The issue with reference to the marketability has neither been considered nor any finding given by the Collector. Further, it was submitted in reply to the show cause notice that demand was barred by time since the activity of the party was known to the department. He also pointed out that issue with reference to the limitation has also not been considered.
4. On seeing the reply and the impugned order Shri Nunthuk has no objection to remand the matter.
5. We have carefully considered the matter. When once the assessee has taken the plea with reference to the marketability and limitation it was the duty of the Adjudicating Authority to consider the same and to give clear findings on both the issues. But since the same has not been done as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the view that this matter will have to go back for reconsideration. Accordingly, we are remanding the matter to the concerned Commissioner to decide these two issues afresh and to pass an appropriate order after providing an opportunity to the appellants.
6. Thus, this appeal is allowed by way of remand.