Rajan Roy, J. - (1.) Heard.
(2.) This revision was admitted way back on 29.5.2003 obviously on the question Nos.1 and 2 framed earlier in the revision itself which are as under: "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law to reject the appeal on a completely fresh ground neither arising out of the order appealed against nor raised by the revisionist in ground of appeal filed against the impugned order nor argued during the pleadings by the revisionist or the respondent. (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law to hold that the Mild Steel Welding Electrodes and Cast Iron Welding Electrodes may be different goods but are not the goods of a different nature as both are welding electrodes when the raw material used, manufacturing process, chemical composition, machines required for manufacturing, end use of both types of electrodes and common parlance meaning of both types of electrodes is completely different."
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist Sri N.C. Mishra as well as Sri Rohit Nandan Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue have addressed the Court on the aforesaid questions at length.;