ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice.
2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner demanding duty of Rs. 24,996.80, confiscating the goods manufactured by the appellant permitting redemption on payment of find and imposing penalty on the appellant and other.
3. In his order, the Commissioner has found that the appellant had not paid duty on the seamless steel tubes manufactured by it. The main contention in the appeal before us is that the appellant obtained these tubes by redrawing tubes of larger dimensions which it purchased from the market and such redrawing of tubes into smaller diameter does not amount to manufacture. It is contended that this point was raised before the Commissioner.
4. The Commissioner in the order has not dealt with this aspect at all. She only says that the assessee has not disputed classification of the product. That, however, was not the argument raised before her. She was required to consider the argument that the goods were not the result of manufacture as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act and as explained by the courts. The appeal before us does not does provide sufficient material about the details of the processes undertaken by the appellant. The departmental representative, too, is unable to enlighten us. We are therefore unable to come to a conclusion. We hence think that it is appropriate that the Commissioner, who in any case should have examined this aspect, should consider it now.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside. The appellant may, within two months from the receipt of this order, make submissions to the Commissioner in support of its contention that the process does not amounts to manufacture. After considering these submissions and the evidence that it may produce as well as the evidence that the department may produce, the Commissioner shall pass orders on this aspect, and on the related issues of confiscation and penalty, according to law.