JUDGMENT K.S. Jhaveri, J. - By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the department. 2. This court while admitting the appeal on 6th April, 2012 framed the following questions of law :- "1. Whether denial of benefit of SSI Exemption Notification No. 9/2003 was just, legal and proper when admittedly the turnover for FY 2003-04 was less then Rs. 3 crores that is the prescribed time?" 2. Whether passing of order dated 28-2-2010 in an ex parte manner was violative of Principle of Natural Justice and CESTAT Rules when the fact of transfer of factory premises due to merger of unit was intimated to the department in time and the notice of hearing not supplied?" 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that originally when the appeal was preferred, the appellant was having the following address : "M/S. EXPO-FYN ELECTRICALS and ELECTRONICS G1-133, M.I.A, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN) Adv./Consult" 3.1 However the appeal of 2006 was heard on 28th April, 2010 and the address of the appellant now as per the cause title of appeal-memo reads as under : M/s. Expo-Fyn Electricals and Electronics Presently Merged and Known As DANISH Pvt. Ltd., Addressed At F-680, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur-302 022. Through Tarun Jain Authorized Signatory, R/o. H.NO. 2343, M.S.B. Ka Rasta, Johari Bazaar, Jaipur" 4. The above address was known to the department but the notice for final hearing was never served on the appellant. In that view of the matter, the appellant could not appear before the Tribunal and on facts, the appellant has a chance to distinguish the judgment which sought to be relied upon by the Tribunal. 5. We have gone through the order of Tribunal. 6. No facts or reasoning has been given by the Tribunal except relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Pune v. SKF India Ltd. reported in 2009 (239) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) . 7. However without entering into merits of the case only on the ground that the appellant was not served on the new address, the matter is required to be remitted back to the Tribunal on the second issue. 8. Hence the second issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the department. 7. However without entering into merits of the case only on the ground that the appellant was not served on the new address, the matter is required to be remitted back to the Tribunal on the second issue. 8. Hence the second issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the department. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the first issue. 9. The appeal stands disposed of.