ORDER 1. The Appellant herein is the manufacturer of Foundrinier Synthetic Wire Cloth and the said cloth is of a kind suitable of industrial use in paper making machine. According to the Appellant it was at all times covered by sub-heading 5909.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. However, in the year 1992, first show cause notice i.e. on 25-9-1992 was issued by the Department for additional Excise duty for the period September, 1987 to June, 1992 whereby the additional duty for the sum of Rs. 3.64 crores on Grieg fabric was demanded on the ground that the said fabric constitutes an Intermediary Product (LP.) which was an independent marketable and excisable product. 2. Thereafter, seventeen show cause notices followed and in all eighteen show cause notices were issued. The period covered by these show cause notices is September, 1987 to June, 1992; July, 1992 to January, 1996 and January, 2000 to March, 2003. Thus the total period covered is September, 1987 to March, 2003 except February, 1996 to December, 1999. 3. The first show cause notice dated 25-9-1992 led to the passing of an Order-in-Original dated 10-2-2001 confirming the demand of additional duty proposed in the show cause notice and also a penalty of Rs. 72.73 lakhs. Similar order was passed in respect of other 17 show cause notices though it was one consolidated order. 4. Against both the orders the Appellant herein preferred appeals. The CESTAT has disposed of these two appeals by two separate orders and in both the cases on certain aspects matter have been remanded back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration. At the same time, some of the issues raised by the Appellant have been decided by the CESTAT against the Appellant and it is for this reason the instant two appeals are preferred challenging those aspects of the matter which have been decided against the Appellant. Even the order of remand has been challenged. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties for some time, we find that though remand order is confined to 3 certain aspects and particularly on the question as to whether the intermediary product was marketable or not, we are of the opinion that other issues raised by the Respondent also need to be adjudicated afresh by the Commissioner while deciding the said aspect. For the sake of clarity we may point out that following issues are raised by the Appellant in these appeals: (1) Jurisdictional issue, namely, whether in invocation of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, was without jurisdiction as it was not invoked under the show cause notice; (2) Whether intermediary product was not at all marketable; (3) If the finding is that the intermediary product was marketable, then whether it would attract 'nil' duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978; (4) Even if 1957 Act is applicable, whether the duty payable would still be 'nil' on the ground that intermediary product was wooven fabric covered by Heading 5408.00/5406.10; (5) If the intermediary product is held to be covered by Heading 5409.00 as contended by Revenue, would it still be exempted from additional duty under 1957 Act from 11-8-1994 in view of certain Notifications relied upon by the Appellant; (6) Whether the Revenue can invoke the provisions of proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and claim longer period of limitation of five years in issuing the show cause notices; (7) In case it ultimately held that additional duty is payable, then the question of quantification of the disputed demand including the question as to whether the Appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 13/2005-C.E. (N.T.). We accordingly dispose of these appeals with direction to the Commissioner to decide all the aforesaid issues afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties to produce whatever evidence/material they want to rely upon in support of their respective contentions. As a result, the impugned order of the Tribunal and the consequential orders passed by the Commissioner will stand set aside including notices of demand raised pursuant thereto.