Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, counsel for the revisionist and learned Standing Counsel. The assessee is doing business of manufacture and sale of utensils. The dispute is in relation to assessment year 2004-05 (U.P.). The controversy involved in this revision is whether aluminum utensils imported from outside India are taxable at the rate of 5% or 20%. The answer to the above question is dependent upon the interpretation of the notification No.KA.NI-23431/XI-10(1)/80-U.P.Act-15-48-Order-(43)-2004 Lucknow: Dated: 22 November, 2004 which provides that the turnover of utensils made of aluminum which is imported from outside India shall be taxable at the rate of 20%. The assessing authority determined the tax liability by applying the rate of 20%. The appellate authority interpreting the aforesaid notification held that utensils made of aluminum which is imported from outside India alone is taxable at the rate of 20% and not all aluminum utensils. The tribunal instead of interpreting the aforesaid notification itself remanded the matter to the assessing authority with the direction to call for a report/clarification from the State Government regarding above notification and then to decide about the rate of taxability of the utensils made of aluminum imported from outside India. The notification is applicable to utensils made of aluminum which is imported from outside India. The controversy is whether the said notification can be applied to all aluminum utensils. This is basically dependent upon the language of the above notification for which no clarification is necessary from the Government. The tribunal could have easily considered the said notification and taken a decision as to whether the view taken by the first appellate authority is correct or not. The tribunal having failed to do so has clearly abdicated his duties in remanding the matter. In view of the above, I hold that the tribunal is not justified in not deciding the matter itself on merit and in remanding it to the assessing authority. The order of the tribunal dated 5.11.2012 is set aside with the direction to the tribunal to decide it on merits. The revision is allowed. _____________