BHARATJI AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) LEARNED Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Manu Khare, learned counsel for the appellant, Dr. Ashok Kumar Nigam, Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri Ajay Bhanot, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and Shri S. P. Kesarwani, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been heard. ( 2 ) AS requested and agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, we have proceeded to hear and dispose of this appeal finally at this stage. ( 3 ) THIS appeal has been preferred under Section 35b of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 1944 Act ). Aggrieved by the order dated 13. 10. 2008 passed by the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short "the Tribunal") on the application of the appellant seeking waiver of pre-deposit. ( 4 ) THE statute requires deposit of an amount disputed whereafter only the appeal preferred before the Tribunal could be heard. The appellant filed an application under Section 129 of the Customs, 1962 (for short "1962 Act) and sought waiver of the said application. The appeal has been disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 13. 10. 2008 (impugned in this appeal) directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 15 crores in addition to Rs. 1. 50 crores already deposited by it. It is this order, aggrieved whereagainst the present appeal has arisen. ( 5 ) THE facts, in brief, are that the M/s Novamet Industries-appellant no. 1 is a partnership firm (for short "the firm") whereof appellant nos. 2 and 3 are the partners. The firm is 100% export oriented unit engaged in the business of segregation and separation of ferrous and non-ferrous waste and scrape i. e. Copper Scrap, Aluminum Scrap, Lead Scrap and other scrap from mixed Copper Cable Scrap, Copper Lead Cable Scrap and mixed cable scrap etc. Appellant no. 1 was issued a notice dated 10. 3. 2006 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence alleging inter alia, in brief, as under: - (a) "the importer M/s NI failed to fulfill conditions of Notification No. 53/97 - Customs dated 3. 6. 97 and 52/03-CUS dated 31. 3. 2003, which exempts goods imported by an 100% EOU subject to the conditions laid down therein. 3. 2006 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence alleging inter alia, in brief, as under: - (a) "the importer M/s NI failed to fulfill conditions of Notification No. 53/97 - Customs dated 3. 6. 97 and 52/03-CUS dated 31. 3. 2003, which exempts goods imported by an 100% EOU subject to the conditions laid down therein. The NI has contravened the provisions (conditions) of the said notifications in as much as: (i) NI failed to obtain the registration from the Ministry of Environment or the Central Pollution Control Board with regards to import of copper cable scrap (druid), which is required as per para 6. 2 of the Exim Policy [which provides that the duty free imports of all types of capital goods and raw materials except prohibited items are allowed and any permission required for import under any other law shall be applicable thus violating the condition of Exim Policy by importing restricted item without fulfilling the requirement under the Hazardous Wastes Management Rules, 1989. By doing so, NI violated the condition (1) of the exemption notification which provides that the imports, clearance, export, transfer and usage of the goods and goods manufactured there from and the Net foreign exchange earning as a percentage of exports shall be subject to the conditions of the Export and Import Policy. (ii) By misdeclaring copper recovery contents in the statutory records and by illegally removing the differential copper recovered (difference between copper actually recovered - copper recovery shown in the statutory records), the NI violated condition (3) the notification which provided the importer carries out the manufacture, production, packaging or job work or service in Custom bond and subject to such condition as may be specified by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs in this behalf. As per the Bond B-17 executed by the Party, NI was required to maintain detailed accounts of all imported and indigenous goods used in the manufacturing process and operations in proper form. NI not only manipulated these account to show lesser recovery of copper material, but also diverted such copper into the Domestic market without payment of duty in contravention of condition (7) of the B-17 bond executed by NI with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs/deputy Commissioner of Customs. NI not only manipulated these account to show lesser recovery of copper material, but also diverted such copper into the Domestic market without payment of duty in contravention of condition (7) of the B-17 bond executed by NI with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs/deputy Commissioner of Customs. (iii)Further, NI also misdeclared the values of imported goods to reduce its export obligation and to justify lower recovery of copper metals from the scrap imported. The differential metal content so recovered were diverted into domestic market illegally and to account for the recovered material in quantity terms, items having no value or negligible value were shown to have been produced and reflected in the statutory records. The failure to maintain proper records was in violation of the condition (3) of the Customs notification under which the goods were imported duty free. (iv)NI has imported copper scrap (Berry), which is pure scrap of copper wire and was the final product for the EOU. The EOUs are allowed to import. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . products itself. The final product was imported by mis-declaring the same as copper cable scrap. (v)The duty free imports were allowed as per notifications for export purpose. NI mis-declared the value of imported goods as Rs. 16,91,53,105/- instead of actual value of Rs. 57,99,49,944/ -. By resorting to mis-declaration of value of imported goods, manipulation of statutory records and by clearing the differential copper content I the DTA without payment of duty, NI grossly violated the conditions provisions of notifications mentioned above and Export and Import Policy. In view of these violations of the conditions/provisions of the customs notifications as well as Export and Import Policy, Ni is not eligible for duty exemption under the said customs notifications and duty is leviable on all imports made by NI by availing the benefits on above said notifications. (vi)It is well settled principle that "the burden to prove eligibility to exemption under a notification rests on the party, who claims the exemption. " [mysore Metal Industries Vs. Collector, 1988 (36) ELT 369 (SC), In Rajasthan Spring and Wvg. Mills Vs. (vi)It is well settled principle that "the burden to prove eligibility to exemption under a notification rests on the party, who claims the exemption. " [mysore Metal Industries Vs. Collector, 1988 (36) ELT 369 (SC), In Rajasthan Spring and Wvg. Mills Vs. Collector, 1995 (77) ELT 474 (SC), the Honble Supreme Court has decided that "it is for the assessee to establish that the goods manufactured by him come within the ambit of the notification. Since it is case of exemption from duty, there is no question of any liberal construction to extend the term and scope of the exemption notification, which must be strictly construed. No extended meaning can be given to the item to enlarge the scope of exemption". (vii)In view of above, the benefit of the notification No. 53/97- cus. Dated 03. 06. 97 (in force upto 31. 03. 03) and 52/2003-cus. dated 31. 03. 03 (in force with effect from 01. 04. 03) to the misdeclared imported goods is not available to NI and the entire duty exempted availed by NI on reworked out value of imported goods is recoverable from them. (b) Further NI has also failed to fulfill condition 2 (i) of LOP that NI would export its entire production excluding rejects and sales in the Domestic Tariff Area as per provisions of EXIM Policy for a period of five years. For this purpose NI was also required to furnish the requisite Legal Undertaking as prescribed in the Hand Book of Procedures (Vol-I) to the Development Commissioner, NSEZ. NIs act of willful misdeclaration of value and clandestine removal of manufactured goods was in violation of the provisions of the Export-Import policy. (c) NI has also failed to comply with the conditions of B-17 bond is as much as: (i)NI failed to observe all the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder. (ii)NI engaged in clandestine removal of the goods from the factory without payment of duty. (iii)NI failed to observe and comply with all the provisions of manufacture and other operations, contained in the warehouse Regulations, 1966 and warehoused Goods (Removal) Regulations, 1963. (iv)NI failed to maintain proper and genuine detailed accounts of all important and indigenous goods used in the manufacturing process and operations in proper form including those remaining in stock an those sent outside under their obligation. (iv)NI failed to maintain proper and genuine detailed accounts of all important and indigenous goods used in the manufacturing process and operations in proper form including those remaining in stock an those sent outside under their obligation. (v)NI failed to fulfill the export obligation and conditions stipulated in Customs/central Excise Notifications, as amended, under which the specified goods have been imported/sourced, as well as the Import-Export Policy as amended from time to time. (vi)NI failed to ensure that only goods, which were allowed to be removed into DTA on payment of duty were so removed and removed goods clandestinely without payment of duty leviable on such articles under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. " ( 6 ) APPELLANT no. 1, Vinay Jain filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 237 of 2007 challenging the said notice and alleging that certain documents are needed by the appellant to submit effective reply but not being supplied filed writ petition no. 2378 of 2007 before this Court on 26. 2. 2007. Thereafter the authorities passed the assessment order dated 28. 2. 2007/13. 3. 2007, which was also challenged by the appellant by moving amendment application. The aforesaid writ petition, which was allowed by a Division Bench consisting of Honble H. L. Gokhale, C. J. and Honble R. K. Agarwal, J. vide judgment dated 6. 7. 2007 quashing the order dated 28. 2. 2007/13. 3. 2007 with the following directions: - "29. In this state of affairs, it will be appropriate to interfere with the order which the second respondent has passed and to direct him to make available the copies of the data stated to have recovered from the computers, which have become the basis of the conclusion of under-evaluation. The respondent no. 2 ought to return the four CPU also, which ware now no longer required after the data is retrieved by the DRI. In the meantime, the interest of the Revenue will be protected in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner. 30. In the circumstances, we allow the petition, quash and set aside the order dated 28. 2. 2007/13. 3. 2007 and restore the revived notice to the file of the respondent no. 2. The respondents are further directed to make available copies of the data retrieved from the computer within four weeks hereof as also the four CPU. 30. In the circumstances, we allow the petition, quash and set aside the order dated 28. 2. 2007/13. 3. 2007 and restore the revived notice to the file of the respondent no. 2. The respondents are further directed to make available copies of the data retrieved from the computer within four weeks hereof as also the four CPU. The petitioner will not encumber the property of their factory, situate at Property Nos. 4 and 4a, Mahila Udhami Park, Greator Noida, in the meanwhile and the same will stand charged to the Revenue until the decision on the show cause notice, as per the undertaking given by them. The respondent no. 2 will endeavour to hear and decide the revived notice expeditiously. The rule is made absolute, without any order as to costs. " ( 7 ) THEREAFTER, the appellant applied for the relevant documents and said to have submitted his reply on 1. 1. 2008 and additional reply on 26. 2. 2008. The Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs passed order dated 19. 3. 2008 confirming his proposal made in the show cause notice. Challenging the order dated 19. 3. 2008 the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal along with the stay application seeking complete waiver. The Tribunal on 13. 10. 2008 rejected the stay application for complete waiver of pre-deposit of duty and interest and directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 15 crores within a period of eight weeks. The appellant challenged this order dated 13. 10. 2008 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2272 of 2008 but the same was dismissed by the Honble Single Judge vide judgment dated 20. 1. 2009 observing that against the impugned order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has remedy of filing appeal before this Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act. Consequently, the present appeal has been preferred. ( 8 ) SHRI Bharatji Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel vehemently contended that in order to see whether the appellant is entitled for waiver or not, the condition precedent is "undue hardship" of the appellant and if it exists, the Tribunal is under an obligation to grant waiver in respect of pre-deposit of the amount though it may impose certain conditions for protecting interest of the revenue. He contends that while considering the case of undue hardship one of the relevant facets thereof is the existence of a prima facie case. He contends that while considering the case of undue hardship one of the relevant facets thereof is the existence of a prima facie case. He stated that certain documents were relied by the respondent-department though those documents were not made available to him. Even the author of the document or whose statement was relied not examined or alleged to be cross- examined despite request and, therefore, reliance thereof is wholly illegal. He further contended that the inquiry report in respect of foreign parties were relied upon though the documents mentioned in such inquiry reports were not supplied despite demand and, therefore, the entire proceeding were vitiated in law. He placed reliance on the Apex Courts decision in Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, 2000 (122) E. L. T. 641 (S. C.); Arya Abhushan Bhandar v. Union of India, 2002 (143) E. L. T. 25 (S. C.) and Shalimar Rubber Industries v. Collector of C. Ex. , Cochin, 2002 (146) E. L. T 248 (S. C.) and submitted that where the documents have been relied without supplying copies thereof to the assessee or where the statement of some parties have been relied without giving opportunity to cross-examine, it vitiates the order passed by the assessing authority being in violation of the principle of natural justice. It is also contended that the appellant is not in the capacity of making payment of such huge amount and question of financial hardship not at all having been considered by the Tribunal though it was duly raised on behalf of the appellant before the Tribunal, the order impugned in this appeal is liable to be set aside. ( 9 ) DR. A. K. Nigam, on the contrary, submitted that the submissions on the merit of the matter are misconceived. He said that since the appeal is still pending before the Tribunal, it would not be appropriate to decide those issues or express any opinion thereon since they would affect and prejudice the proceeding pending in appeal before the Tribunal. ( 10 ) WE have considered the submissions but find ourselves unable to agree that the impugned order of Tribunal warrants any interference at this stage in so far as it has declined to grant complete waiver. ( 11 ) THE Commissioner vide order dated 13. 10. 2008 has ordered for the custom duty and central excise duty, fine etc. ( 10 ) WE have considered the submissions but find ourselves unable to agree that the impugned order of Tribunal warrants any interference at this stage in so far as it has declined to grant complete waiver. ( 11 ) THE Commissioner vide order dated 13. 10. 2008 has ordered for the custom duty and central excise duty, fine etc. to the following effect: - (a)Assessable value of the imported scraped declared as - mixed Copper Cable Scraped and mixed Copper Lead Cable Scraped revised from the declared value of Rs. 16,91,53,105/- to Rs. 57,99,49,944/-; (b)Denied the benefit of notifications dated 3. 6. 1997 and 31. 3. 03 in respect of duty free inputs and confirmed custom duty of Rs. 27,10,90,863/- against appellant no. 1 under Section 28 (1) of the Customs Act, 1982 along with interest under Section 28ab of the Customs Act; (c)Confiscate under Section 111 (d), (m) and (o) of the Customs Act 8458. 462 MT of mixed Copper Cable Scrap (Druid) and4256. 29 MT of mixed Copper Lead Cable Scrap (Relays) imported by respondent no. 1. since these goods are not available for confiscation, imposed a fine of Rs. 30 crores under Section 125 of the Customs Act; (d)Penalty of Rs. 27,10,90,863/- under Section 114a of the Customs Act; (e)Confirmed Central Excise Duty demand of Rs. 25,95,08,555/- along with interest; (f)Penalty of Rs. 25,95,08,555/- under Section 11ac of Central Excise Act read with Rule 25 (1) of the Central Excise Act, 2002; (g)Penalty of Rs. 15 crores on Vinay Jain, Rs. 15 Crores on Shri Satish Bhalla nd Rs. 5 Crores on Mrs. Sangeeta Bhalla under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002; (h)Penalty of Rs. 27,10,90,863/- on Shri Vinay Jain, Rs. 27,10,90,863/- on Shri Satish Bhalla and Rs. 27,10,90,863/- on Mrs. Sangeeta Bhalla under Section 112 read with Section 114a of Customs Act, 1962. ( 12 ) BEFORE the Tribunal it appears that the learned counsel for the appellant while arguing application seeking waiver under Section 35f of the Central Excise Act and 129e of the Customs Act has advanced his argument only on the following grounds, as are noticed by the Tribunal in para 2. 1 of its order impugned in this appeal and it would be useful to reproduced as under: - (1)"there is no allegation that the Net Foreign Earning (NFE) has not been achieved by NI. 1 of its order impugned in this appeal and it would be useful to reproduced as under: - (1)"there is no allegation that the Net Foreign Earning (NFE) has not been achieved by NI. Though the show cause notice alleges that export obligation has not been met, no basis for this allegation has been disclosed. Even if the allegation of under invoicing in import of inputs is treated as correct, the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 53/97-Cus and 52/03-Cus cannot be denied as the export obligations have been met and positive NFE has been achieved. (2)As per the EXIM policy [itc (HC)], import of copper cable scrap of ISRI code druid and Jelly filled Copper cables scrap is allowed without licence subject to registration with Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF), Government of India. Para 6. 2 (b) of the 2002-2007 of EXIM Policy permits import of all the items except prohibited items, by a 100% EOU and as per para 6. 6 (a) and 6. 6 (b) of the policy, LOP issued Tribunal an EOU by the Development Commissioner would be construed as a license fee for all purposes including procurement of raw materials, and consumables. Copper cable scrap of Druid code is not a prohibited item. Therefore the appellant company - NI, as a 100% EOU, could import this scrap without registration with MOEF. It is only w. e. f. September 2004 that the policy was amended to make registration wit MOEF compulsory for import of Copper Cable scrap - Druid for all the importers, including EOUs. But this amendment cannot be applied retrospectively. All the imports in this case took place during 2001 - August 2004 period. (3)There is no ground for finding in para 4. 22 of the impugned order that NI have not achieved the required value addition and export performance and that they have failed to fulfill the conditions laid down in the Notification No. 53/97-Cus and 52/03-Cus. (4)As per Boards Circular No. 122. 95-Cus dated 28. 11. 95, on issues like non-fulfillment of export obligation, action has to be initiated to consultation with the Development Commissioner. (5)Inquiry regarding alleged under invoicing has been made only in respect of 1. 1% of the total imports. There is no reliable evidence in this regard. (4)As per Boards Circular No. 122. 95-Cus dated 28. 11. 95, on issues like non-fulfillment of export obligation, action has to be initiated to consultation with the Development Commissioner. (5)Inquiry regarding alleged under invoicing has been made only in respect of 1. 1% of the total imports. There is no reliable evidence in this regard. (6)The allegation that the Appellate company - NI has under reported the Copper recovery from copper cable scrap and copper lead cable scrap as 20% while actual recovery is 60% - 80% and the balance quantity has been cleared clandestinely to DTA without payment of duty is without any basis - based only on assumptions and presumptions. " ( 13 ) NONE of the grounds raised before the Tribunal shows that the argument, which have been raised before this Court in the present appeal, were either raised or argued. In the absence of the issues, which were not rake up before the Tribunal, we fail to understand as to how the appellant can be permitted to make those issues in this appeal particularly when they are the issues involving investigation into facts or mixed questions of facts and law. Even otherwise, the submission that the documents have been relied on without permitting the appellant to cross-examine the author on such document and this vitiate the entire order of the Commissioner, cannot be accepted inasmuch as there is nothing on record to show that at any point of time the appellant disputed the correctness of such document or placed any material, which may have contradicted the documents relied by the revenue before the Commissioner. In such circumstances, in our view, merely if the author of the documents has not been cross-examined, it cannot vitiate the order. ( 14 ) THE three judgments relied by the learned counsel for the appellant have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal thereof would show that the same were in the light of totally different facts. ( 15 ) IN Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. (supra) the Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Collector for fresh decision after coming to the conclusion that there had been denial of principle of natural justice. ( 15 ) IN Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. (supra) the Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Collector for fresh decision after coming to the conclusion that there had been denial of principle of natural justice. However, it had upheld finding of the Collector that M/s Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. will have no right to cross-examine the witnesses of the statements the Collector had relied upon, who are alleged to have utilized the commodity categories as used for the purposes of spinning yard. The Apex Court in the facts and circumstances of that case, as evident from para 4, permitted M/s Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. that since Collector has to decide the matter afresh the opportunity of cross-examination be afforded to the appellant. ( 16 ) IN Arya Abhushan Bhandar (supra) the appellant raised the issue that the search was conducted both in their shop and their house though the search warrant was limited to the shop. To decide this question of fact the Court found that panchas to the search were material witness and if they are not produced for cross-examination though asked for, it would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is, in these circumstances, the Court intervened and held that opportunity of cross-examination of the panchas to the search was relevant and necessary. ( 17 ) IN Shalimar Rubber Industries (supra) the department has produced the evidence i. e. the statement made by Shri Sunny P. Kunnath partner of M/s Universal Agency to show that the appellant firm, in fact, procured the carbon black from the M/s Universal Agency as per 82 invoices recovered by investigating agency. On the contrary the appellant M/s Shalimar produced a letter dated 22. 7. 2007 written by M/s Universal Agency to show that Shri Kunnath was partner wherein it was specifically stated that the appellant Shalimar Industries had not purchased carbon black recovered by the 62 of the 82 invoices. On the contrary the appellant M/s Shalimar produced a letter dated 22. 7. 2007 written by M/s Universal Agency to show that Shri Kunnath was partner wherein it was specifically stated that the appellant Shalimar Industries had not purchased carbon black recovered by the 62 of the 82 invoices. The Collector rejected the letter produced by the appellant and relied upon the statement produced by the department without examining or allowing the cross-examination of Shri Kunnath and in these circumstances the Apex Court held that this approach was not correct and opportunity of cross-examination of Shri Kunnath was necessary, as is evident from the following: - "we find it extremely difficult to accept this explanation of the Collector to reject the letter written by M/s Universal Agencies. If the Collector can accept a statement allegedly made by a partner of the Universal Agencies which is not confirmed by his oral evidence in the inquiry and not subjected to cross-examination, we fail to understand how he could reject the letter signed by the very same person wherein he has given a diametrically opposed statement. In our opinion, the Collector on this point has used a different yardstick in assessing the evidence of Shri Sunny P. Kunnath" ( 18 ) MOREOVER, from the substantial questions of law framed by the appellant we find that all there are basically those issues, which are yet to be decided in the appeal pending before the Tribunal and are not in concerned with the question as to whether the Tribunal in passing the order under Section 35f of the Central Excise Act and 129e of the Customs Act in respect to waiver has validly exercised its jurisdiction or not. Therefore, in our view no substantial question of law has actually been framed by the appellant in this appeal. ( 19 ) IN respect to the order impugned in this appeal the arguments raised by the appellants counsel touching the merit of the issues, which are referable to the order of the Commissioner, are those which are subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal. ( 19 ) IN respect to the order impugned in this appeal the arguments raised by the appellants counsel touching the merit of the issues, which are referable to the order of the Commissioner, are those which are subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal. Suffice it to mention that any observation by this Court on the merit of those issues would prejudice either of the parties and, therefore, it would be prudent for this Court not to touch upon those aspect in this appeal since the pending appeal before the Tribunal is yet to be decided on merits. ( 20 ) FROM the entire facts and circumstance of the case, we are clearly of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any error by not granting complete waiver to the appellant considering the huge amount of duty and penalty imposed upon the appellant and it cannot be said that the order is apparently unjust or illegal or in any manner amounts to erroneous exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the Tribunal. ( 21 ) BE that as it may, since it is always the endeavour of this Court to have the matter decided on merits and where the order of revenue authority is subject matter of appeal but condition of pre-deposit is there in the statute before the appel can be entertained, the power of waiver of pre-deposit has to be exercised by the appellate authority considering over all facts and circumstances with a view that if a party gets opportunity to have matter decided on merit, the order of the assessing authority will be tested by appellate forum and it will not cause any serious prejudice to the revenue. On the contrary, it will get doubly sure about the correctness of the order and this will inspire confidence in the public in assessing that no particular, unjust and undue demand has been made by the revenue authorities. ( 22 ) CONSIDERING over all facts and circumstances, we find that interest of justice would be met if the appellant in total deposits a sum of Rs. Ten crores out of which, as stated by the Tribunal Rs. 1. 5 crores it has already deposited, and, therefore, if it deposits a sum of Rs. 8. ( 22 ) CONSIDERING over all facts and circumstances, we find that interest of justice would be met if the appellant in total deposits a sum of Rs. Ten crores out of which, as stated by the Tribunal Rs. 1. 5 crores it has already deposited, and, therefore, if it deposits a sum of Rs. 8. 5 crores within a period of six weeks from today, the requirement of pre-deposit of balance amount of duty and penalty shall stand waived and recovery thereof shall be stayed till the appeal is decided by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal impugned in this appeal is modified to the aforesaid extent. We also direct that in case this order is complied with by the appellants and the amount, as aforesaid directed, is paid, the appeal shall also be heard and decided expeditiously by the Tribunal, if possible, within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. ( 23 ) WE further clarify that any observation in this order shall not be construed as opinion expressed by this Court on merit of the issues subjudice before the Tribunal and it shall decide the matter independently on the basis of the material available before it and applicable law. With the aforesaid modification/direction this appeal stands disposed of. .