Judgment Ajay Tewari, J. 1. C.M. No. 15264 C.II of 2007 : For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 153 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CEA No. 64 of 2007 2. This is an appeal by the Revenue proposing the following question of law :- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the Tribunal can be said to be complete when the Tribunal had not dealt with all the Grounds of Appeal raised before it while passing the impugned order on 2-8-2006. 3. The respondent and one another concern, namely, M/s. Jai Bharat General Mills, Unit-II, Jaitu are manufacturers of M.S. tubes and pipes. The preventive staff visited the premises of the respondent on 14-8-2001 and discovered that M.S. Bars, the invoice of which was issued in the name of the aforementioned firm M/s. Jai Bharat General Mills, were being unloaded. Apart from this, 24 metric tonnes of M.S. pipes and tubes were also found unaccounted. The finished goods and raw material were seized and a show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation of raw material and finished goods and proposing further penal action. The Deputy Commissioner ultimately confiscated both raw material as well as finished goods with option to redeem on payment of fine. He also imposed a penalty both on the respondent as well as on M/s. Jai Bharat General Mills and that the trucks from which the inputs were being unloaded were also confiscated with option to redeem. 4. In appeal, the penalty imposed on M/s. Jai Bharat General Mills was set aside, the seizure of 24 metric tonnes of pipes and tubes was vacated, while confiscation of inputs and trucks as well as the penalty on the respondent were upheld. 5. The respondent filed an appeal against the confiscation and penalty, while the revenue carried the matter against the dropping of penal action against M/s. Jai Bharat General Mills. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent holding that the provisions of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 under which the inputs were confiscated were not attracted in the case of duty paid goods and also dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in respect of the aforesaid M/s. Jai Bharat General Mills. 6. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent holding that the provisions of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 under which the inputs were confiscated were not attracted in the case of duty paid goods and also dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in respect of the aforesaid M/s. Jai Bharat General Mills. 6. The Revenue filed two rectification applications in both the cases mainly alleging that all the grounds of appeal had not been considered while passing the Original Order-in-Appeal, which were rejected holding that the Original Order-in-Appeal had considered all contentions. In the circumstances we find that the proposed question does not arise in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.