Full Judgment
1. These two appeals have identical facts and involve apart from question of law, substantial questions of chemical process. Shri Nankani, Counsel representing to the Respondents is engaged in another Court. On perusal of the impugned orders and also the appeal memorandum it appears that it is necessary to appreciate the chemical reactions involved in the process of manufacture and to judge whether they fall within the ambit of exclusion stipulated in the concerned notification.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order appears to have relied upon a technical opinion presented before him from a Technical Institution in Nagpur. In the appeal memorandum a discussion of the chemical process has been made without reference being made to the opinion. The Revenue have not placed on record copy of the opinion relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals). This is not a very satisfactory situation.
3. To give both sides an opportunity to produce technical literature amplifying the scope of the terminology used in the exemption notification and to compile the process undertaken in the assessees' factory, the matter is adjourned.