ORDER 1. The common question in these appeals is whether the appellant assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 35/95-CE dated 16-31995 as amended by Notifications No. 77/95-CE dated 3-4-1995; No. 81/95- CE dated 7-4-1995; No. 84/95-CE dated 18-5-1995 and No. 115/95-CE dated 3-11-1995 (hereinafter referred to as ”the notification"). 2. The notification provided exemption in respect of items mentioned in a Serial Nos. 1 to 6 subject to the conditions specified in column 5 of the table appended to the notification. We are concerned with Serial Nos. I and 5 which read as under: "S/. No. Chapter Description of goods Rate Conditions (1) (2) (3) (4)(5) 1. 51,52, Yam (other than sewing NilIf the yam is,(i) meant 54 or 55thread), double or multifoldfor use in the manufacture including cabled yamof fabrics; and (ii) whether or not dyedmanufactured out printed, bleached or of yarn falling within mercerizedChapters 51, 52, 54 or 55 of the said Schedule on which the appropriate duty of excise under the said Schedule, or as the case may be, the additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), has already been paid 5. 52, 54 orYam subjected to beaming, NilIf produced out of yam 55warping wrapping, windingfalling within Chapters or reeling or anyone or more52, 54 or 55 of the said of these process with or Schedule, on which the without the aid of Power.appropriate duty of excise under the said Schedule, or as the case may be, the additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), has already been paid. " 3. The notification ends with the proviso to the effect that the exemption contained relating to Serial No. 1 or 2 shall not apply to clearances of yarn from a factory having facilities (including plant and equipment) for producing single yarn. One of the appellants before us, namely, M/s Davangere Cotton Mills Ltd. (CA No.1 of 2001) had initially claimed benefit of the exemption by invoking Serial No.1. The benefit was denied to the appellant on the ground that it was hit by the proviso since the appellants manufactured the yarn out of single yarn for which they had the plant and equipment. 4. The benefit was denied to the appellant on the ground that it was hit by the proviso since the appellants manufactured the yarn out of single yarn for which they had the plant and equipment. 4. The appeal in the lead matter, namely, CCE v. Coats Viyella (India) Ltd. also related to a case where the assessee manufactured double yarn out of single yarn on which duty was paid. The double yarn was subjected to diverse processes and was then used in the manufacture of fabrics on which j duty was also paid. MIs Coats Viyella (India) Ltd., however, unlike M/s Davangere Cotton Mills Ltd. claimed the exemption in respect of the double yarn under Serial No. 5 of the notification. The Commissioner of Central a Excise (Appeals) held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the exemption. Being aggrieved the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). The two members constituting the Tribunal differed in their conclusions. The matter was referred to a third member. The third member agreed with the view that M/s Coats Viyella (India) Ltd. was entitled to the benefit of Serial No. 5 of b the notification and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Hence the appeal preferred by Revenue is before us. 5. As far as M/s Davangere Cotton Mills Ltd. was concerned they sought to contend before the third member that they were similarly situated as M/s Coats Viyella (India) Ltd. and even if they were not entitled to invoke Serial No. I, nevertheless, they were entitled to invoke Serial No.5 and be granted c the same benefit as MIs Coats Viyella (India) Ltd. was. The third member of the Tribunal, however, was of the view that since the arguments had not been raised at any earlier stage, it could not be permitted to be raised and accordingly rejected the plea. Being aggrieved M/s Davangere Cotton Mills Ltd. are also before us in appeal (CA No.1 of 2001). 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in CA No. 1 of d 2001 has submitted that the proviso could not be relied upon to reject the claim of the appellant under Serial No. 1 inasmuch as it was limited to double yam which has been cleared from a factory. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in CA No. 1 of d 2001 has submitted that the proviso could not be relied upon to reject the claim of the appellant under Serial No. 1 inasmuch as it was limited to double yam which has been cleared from a factory. As far as the appellant was concerned the double yam was not cleared from the factory but captively consumed in manufacturing fabrics. It was further submitted that in any event, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the decision of the Tribunal e in the matter of Coats Viyella (India) Ltd. and that the third member had the jurisdiction under the provisions of Rule 10 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 to consider the issue. 7. Rule 10 of the 1982 Rules allows the parties to urge grounds not taken in the appeal provided the Tribunal grants leave to the parties to do so. The Tribunal has also been given a wide power to decide the appeal on grounds not taken in the memorandum of appeal. The only limitation on this power of the Tribunal is that the party affected must be given an opportunity of being heard in respect of the new grounds sought to be urged. According to M/s Davangere Cotton Mills Ltd., the issue had been raised originally before the Tribunal and again before the third member when it was referred to the third member on a difference of opinion. Revenue had ample opportunity of dealing with the submission. Besides, it was submitted, that the issue was in any event being agitated in the matter of M/s Coats Viyella (India) Ltd. and there was no question of taking the Revenue by surprise. 8. We are of the view that the Tribunal did err in refusing to hear the appellant only on the ground that the ground had not been raised earlier. Rule 10 was sufficiently widely framed to allow the Tribunal to do so. Having regard to the fact that the Tribunal was itself considering the issue on a contested (sic connected) hearing there was no reason why the appellant should have been shut out from pleading its case on the same basis. 9. Rule 10 was sufficiently widely framed to allow the Tribunal to do so. Having regard to the fact that the Tribunal was itself considering the issue on a contested (sic connected) hearing there was no reason why the appellant should have been shut out from pleading its case on the same basis. 9. As far as the decision on merits is concerned, Serial No. 5 leaves no doubt in our mind that the yarn referred to in column 3 is double yarn. This is clear from the condition mentioned in column 5, namely, that the yarn must be produced falling within Chapters 52, 54 and 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (sic Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985). The Tribunal has also considered the fact that unless double yarn was subjected to the processes mentioned in column 3 of the potification, there was no question of the yarn being marketable. The proviso is limited to Serial Nos. 1 and 2 and does not affect Serial No.5. The reasoning of the Tribunal, in our opinion, is unexceptionable. The appeal as far as M/s Davangere Cotton Mills Ltd. is concerned the same is allowed. As far as the appeals preferred by Revenue in the appeals against M/s Coats Viyella (India) Ltd. are concerned the same are dismissed. 10. No order as to costs.