Judgment:
1. The applicant is absent and unrepresented. On the last occasion, the applicant was absent. We had adjourned the matter so as to give the appellant adequate opportunity of being heard. We now proceed to take up the appeal after hearing the respondent.
2. The first ground in the application that the appeal does not say whether the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned, does not take note of the order dated 1.11.96 of the Tribunal, communicated to the respondent, condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The second ground that the respondent was not given an opportunity of being heard is not supported by any evidence. The date of hearing of 4.1.2001 was communicated to the respondent by notice issued on 29.11.2000. It is next contended that the Tribunal's decision in CC v. Nesha Plast Industries 1999 (113) ELT 93 has not been considered. That decision related to exemption under notification 29/79,m and not exemption under notification 224/89 with which the bench was concerned with in the present case. The contention that the department's appeal was incomplete is again irrelevant. The Tribunal does not find it to be incomplete. The Tribunal has dealt with all the aspects that the Commissioner has dealt with in his order. The Commissioner has passed order on applicability of notification 224/89 and it is the applicability of this notification that is questioned before the Tribunal.