JUDGMENT : 1. The appeal has been preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi against the order passed by the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 21-4-1998. Two points are raised by the learned Additional Solicitor General. The first one is that the judgment relied upon by the CEGAT Punjab Rubber and Allied Industries vs. Union of India, 1983 (12) ELT 54 (Punjab and Haryana) in favour of the respondent has since been reversed by this Court in Union of India vs. Punjab Rubber and Allied Industries, 1999 (105) ELT 3 dated 5-11-1996. The second contention that is raised by the learned counsel is that the appellate authority had merely relied upon the view of the adjudicating authority on the question as to the marketability of the intermediate product and has not given any independent finding on that question. Learned Addl. Solicitor General for the appellant therefore suggested that the matter will have to be remitted to the CEGAT. 2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent however contends that it is clear from the order of the CEGAT that it has given an independent finding as to the marketability of the commodity. Learned counsel also points out that the Supreme Court of India reversed the judgment of the Punjab High Court on the technical ground, namely, that in that case the High Court which disposed of the writ petition had wrongly assumed that no contention was raised by the Department as to the marketability of the commodity and on that count this Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the writ petition. Learned senior counsel contends that judgment does not decide the question of marketability of the intermediate product and cannot apply in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. It is true that in the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Punjab Rubber and Allied Industries this Court held that the High Court in that case went on the wrong assumption that the question of marketability of the commodity was not in issue. This Court pointed out that the High Court overlooked the fact that it was the Department's contention that the intermediary product was a marketable commodity. It was on that ground that the appeal was allowed and the writ petition was dismissed. This Court pointed out that the High Court overlooked the fact that it was the Department's contention that the intermediary product was a marketable commodity. It was on that ground that the appeal was allowed and the writ petition was dismissed. It is clear that this Court did not give any independent finding whether the said intermediate product was marketable or not. 4. Coming to the present case, upon reading of the order of the CEGAT, we are of the view that the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General that the CEGAT has not given any independent finding on the question of marketability or as to the correctness of the findings of the adjudicating authority, is correct. A reading of the order shows that the CEGAT merely relied upon the adjudication order as well as the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana but did not independently decide that question. We are therefore, of the view that the matter should go back for decision on the question of marketability in the light of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties. The order of the CEGAT is therefore set aside and the matter is remitted to the said authority for determination of the aforesaid question. 5. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.