JUDGMENT N. Kumar , J.—The assessee has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the authorities all of whom have concurrently held that the process carried out by the assessee would not amount to manufacture and therefore, the assessee had cleared the rectifiers on which the credit was availed as such and consequently he has to reverse the actual amount of cenvat credit availed on such rectifiers. Though the Tribunal has set aside that portion of the order passed by the original authority where penalty was imposed, the order levying duty has been upheld. The assessee had availed cenvat credit on inputs i.e., rectifier unit. The rectifier units were cleared as rectifier modules and has discharged the duty liability upon the transaction valued by availing the cenvat credit. The amount of credit taken of the duty paid on the rectifiers imported was more and the duty paid on clearance of rectifier modules was less. The audit party observed that the processes which were carried out by the assessee on the rectifiers, would not amount to manufacture and it does not alter the nature, use and outlook of the rectifier. Therefore, the audit party directed the assessee to reverse the differential amount of credit taken by them on such rectifiers. The assessee contested the said audit note on the ground that the processes carried out by them would amount to manufacture. Show cause notice came to be issued demanding differential duty/cenvat credit availed with the proposition for imposition of penalty and demand of interest. Assessee contended the matter. Adjudicating authority after considering the oral and written submission did not accept the contention of the assessee and confirmed the demand and also imposed equivalent penalties and also demanded interest. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, the assessee on 29-4-2009 produced before the Tribunal documents showing the general description of rectifiers, technical specification of rectifiers, physical specification of rectifiers, environmental characteristics of rectifiers, other specification relevant for use of rectifiers, process flow chart of rectifier modification, description of processes in the flow chart, a specimen log of test of rectifier modules and BSNL's requirement of power plant described. 3. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee at the time of arguments relied on the aforesaid documents to substantiate their contention that the process carried out by the assessee constitutes manufacturing process. It appears the judgment was reserved and was pronounced three months after the date of hearing. At para 5.1 of the impugned order the Tribunal [2011 (265) E.L.T. 156 (Tribunal)] has observed as under : In the entire submissions made by the appellant before us and before the adjudicating authority, there is no technical write up which would indicate as to how the processes (as recorded hereinabove), are incidental or ancillary to the manufactured product. Before us also, the learned Counsel has only submitted that programming and burning test would be a test, which is to be considered incidental or ancillary to the manufactured product. We find that in the absence of any technical write up as to how the rectifiers, which were imported by the assessee, and the rectifiers cleared by the assessee after undergoing the processes as indicated hereinabove had resulted in a better rectifiers cleared from the assessee's unit. We are unable to accept the assessee's contention that the processes indicated herein above, would amount to process which is incidental or ancillary for the completion of the manufactured product. 4. Therefore, it is obvious that the technical particulars which was furnished to the Appellate Authority on 29-4-2009 which is produced along with these papers and which are at pages 69 to 91 are not taken note of the by the Tribunal while passing the order. Therefore, the order passed ignoring the material on record cannot be sustained. In these circumstances, the impugned orders requires to be set aside. 5. In that view of the matter, we pass the following order; ORDER (i) The impugned order is set aside. (ii) The matter is now remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and in accordance with law after taking note of the technical write up and other technical literature produced by the assessee on 29-4-2009 before them. That will meet the ends of justice.