JUDGMENT ARAVIND KUMAR, J. - The Revenue is an appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal (CESTAT) in Appeal No. ST/40/2004 vide final order dated December 28, 2006. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under : The respondent is engaged in the services of imparting training to their customers in operating the machines namely distribution control system manufactured and sold by them. According to the appellant, the respondent would fall within the taxable category of "consulting engineering service" and had obtained service tax registration. It is contended that the respondent has filed a refund claim on June 24, 2003 claiming refund of service tax amount in a sum of Rs. 42,65,937 which had been paid under protest. The said refund claim came to be processed and it was found by the appellant that it was not admissible. Hence a show-cause notice was issued as to why the said refund claim should not be rejected under section 11B of the Central Excise Act read with section 83 of service tax. After considering the objections and hearing the respondents, the Deputy Commissioner by Order-in-Original No. 55/2003 dated September 22, 2003 confirmed the demand made in the show-cause notice. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an appeal in O.I.A. No. 24 of 2004 before the Commissioner (Appeals) who by order dated February 27, 2004 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and ordered refund of the said amount. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue filed an appeal before the CESTAT, South Zone Bench, in Appeal No. ST 40/2004 vide its final order No. 41/2007. The Tribunal by its order dated December 28, 2006 rejected the appeal on the ground that the issue has been dealt by the Tribunal in Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in [2006] 74 RLT 937 (CESTAT - Bang). Aggrieved by the same the Revenue is in further appeal before this court under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 questioning the correctness and legality of the order passed by the Tribunal by raising the following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of case, the CESTAT was legal and correct in upholding the grant of refund, without passing any order on the taxability of the activities under consulting engineer service ? (ii) Whether, the CESTAT was legal and correct in setting aside the appeal when the issue involved in the appeal was not decided ? (iii) Whether, the CESTAT was legal and correct in applying the ratio of the cited decisions when the issue in the appeal related to taxability of service under consulting engineer service and the refund matter was merely consequential to the aforesaid issue ?" This appeal having admitted on December 5, 2007 for consideration, the matter was heard at length. Though elaborate arguments were addressed by both sides, it is seen from a perusal of the order dated December 28, 2006 passed by the CESTAT that the Tribunal has not proceeded to consider the appal on the merits namely as to the taxability of the respondent as "consulting engineer" or otherwise at the relevant point of time though urged by the Revenue. The copy of appeal memorandum filed before the Tribunal was made available by the learned counsel for the Revenue before this court during the course of his submission and having perused the same it is seen that a specific ground has been raised with regard to the taxability in so far as the services rendered by the respondent. This being the factual position, the Tribunal without dwelling upon this core issue has disposed of the appeal by its order of rejection dated December 28, 2006, only on the ground that the issue in question had been dealt with in Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Limited which again is the subject-matter for consideration in the appeal filed by the Revenue before this court. In view of non-consideration of the ground urged by the Revenue before the Tribunal about the taxability or otherwise of the services of the respondent at the relevant point of time and this appeal having been admitted way back in the year December 5, 2007, this court is of the considered view that the Tribunal committed an error in not considering the ground urged by the appellant before it and as such the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and accordingly it is set aside. The questions formulated by us hereinabove are answered in favour of the Revenue and the matter stands remitted to the Tribunal for consideration and disposal of the same on the merits in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the parties. The questions formulated by us hereinabove are answered in favour of the Revenue and the matter stands remitted to the Tribunal for consideration and disposal of the same on the merits in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the parties. All the contentions of both the parties are kept open to be urged before the Tribunal. It is also noticed by us that section 35D of the Central Excise Act contemplates the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal whereunder the provisions of the Customs Act under section 129C(1), (2), (5) and (6) have been made applicable whereunder a duty is cast on the Tribunal to consider the grounds urged by the parties and same have to be adjudicated. In view of the fact that the grounds urged by the appellant having not been considered, we are of the considered view that the matter requires consideration afresh on the merits by the Tribunal and accordingly the matter is remitted to the CESTAT for disposal of appeal on the merits and in accordance with law. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.