ORDER : 1. Delay in Civil Appeal No. 7785 of 2001 is condoned. This order shall dispose of three appeals as the point involved in the appeals is the same. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from Civil Appeal No. 1571 of 2001. 2. This is a Statutory Appeal filed under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act') against the final Order Nos.1424/2000-B dated 20.9.2000 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal) in Appeal No. E/228/2000-B. 3. Respondent-assessee manufacturer Cellular Sheets falling under heading 3921.00, Helmet inserts falling under heading 6501.90, Styrene Monomer falling under heading 2902.00, Polystyrene Beads falling under heading 3903.00, Polystyrene Expandable in Powder form and Reclaimed Plastics containers, both falling under heading 3903.00 in addition to Cellular articles for the conveyance or packing of the articles of plastics falling under headings 3923.90 and 3924.90. 4. Government of India issued Notification No. 5/98-CE dated 2nd June, 1998 providing therein the exemption from payment of duty on articles falling under headings 3923.90 and 3924.90 with the condition: "10. The manufacturer does not avail of credit of duty paid under rule 57-A or 57-B on the products mentioned in column (2) or on any other products manufactured in the same factory." 5. Respondent was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 25th February, 1999, inter alia, alleging as under: "..3. Whereas, on going through the said exemption Notification, it appears that at Sl. No.69 of the said Notification, full exemption upto clearance of Rs. 85 lacs w.e.f. 2.6.1998 is allowed for goods other than goods of polyurathanes, insulted(sic) ware and bags or socks made out of fabrics falling under H.Nos.39.23,39.24 or 39.26 subject to condotion No.10 of the annexure to the said notification. The said condition No.10, provides that the Manufacturer does not avail of credit of duty paid under Rule 57A or 57- B on the products mentioned in column (2) or on any other product manufactured in the same factory. Whereas the party had been manufacturing and clearing both exempted and dutiable goods in and from the same registered factory premises and have been simultaneously availing MODVAT facility for the remaining goods. The exemption notification under condition at Sl. Whereas the party had been manufacturing and clearing both exempted and dutiable goods in and from the same registered factory premises and have been simultaneously availing MODVAT facility for the remaining goods. The exemption notification under condition at Sl. No.10, restricts the manufacturer from availing of MODVAT facility in respect of even any other products being manufactured in the same factory." 6. The Show Cause Notice was made absolute. 7. Aggrieved against the order passed by the authority-in-original, respondent filed the appeal before the Tribunal which has been accepted by passing the impugned order. The order-in-original has been set aside. Tribunal has held that the assessee was entitled to the exemption from payment of duty under notification 5/98-CE. 8. Exemption under the notification is available subject to the conditions specified at Sl. No.10 of the annexure to the notification. A perusal of condition No.10 shows that exemption under the notification is available subject to the condition that the manufacturer does not avail of credit of duty (i) on the products mentioned in column 2 of Sl. No.69 of the notification or (ii) on other products manufactured in the same factory. There is no dispute on the point that respondent had not availed of the credit of duty paid on the products mentioned in column 2 i.e. products falling under heading 39.23, 39.24 and 39.26. Exemption has been denied to the respondent on the ground that it was availing of MODVAT credit on the inputs under Rules 57-A or 57-B which were used in or in relation to the manufacture of other final products manufactured by the respondent. This is evident from the allegation made in the show cause notice as well as the finding recorded by the authority-in-original. Tribunal accepted the appeal by observing: "....As it is not the case of the department that the appellants (respondent herein) have availed of credit of duty paid on any other product manufactured in the same factory, the benefit of notification No.5/1998 (Sl.No.68) cannot be denied to the impugned goods....." 9. Counsel for the revenue contended that the above-mentioned finding given by the Tribunal is contrary to the record and the case put forth before the Tribunal. Mr. Counsel for the revenue contended that the above-mentioned finding given by the Tribunal is contrary to the record and the case put forth before the Tribunal. Mr. V.Lakshmikumarn, learned advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the credit taken by the respondent under Rule 57-A and 57-B on "any other products manufactured in the same factory" has been off-set by payment of the applicable/full duty on the finished goods. No such clear cut finding has been recorded by the Tribunal. 10. Since the Tribunal has not recorded any clear cut finding on this point, we accept these appeals; set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal and remit the cases back to the respective Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law. All contentions except the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the question of limitation shall be open to the parties. 11. The Appeals are allowed in the above terms. Parties shall bear their own costs.