ORDER : 1. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. The grievance of the appellant is that exemption on cement in terms of the Notification No.50/2003 had not been granted to the appellant despite the fact that the appellant had started commercial production of clinker, one of the items manufactured by it, in its manufacturing unit prior to the due date, namely, 31st March, 2010. 3. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) by the impugned order dated 17th October, 2014, inter alia, took the view that clinker in respect of which commercial production is claimed to have started prior to the due date is not an exempted item under Exemption Notification No.50/2003 and, therefore, even if the commencement of commercial production of the non-exempted item is to be accepted, the same will not entitle the appellant to claim exemption in respect of cement. Admittedly, commercial production of cement commenced after the due date. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant before the learned Tribunal was dismissed by the impugned order. 4. At the hearing, Shri S. Ganesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out that there were several circulars including Circular dated 26th April, 2012 which state that even if the unit had started commercial production for a non-exempted item, benefit under Exemption Notification No.50/2003 would be due in respect of the exempted item despite the fact that commercial production of the said exempted item may have commenced after the due date. It is claimed that the said circular dated 26th April, 2012 along with other circulars to the same effect were placed before the learned Tribunal. 5. In reply, Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, who is representing the Revenue, has submitted that the Circular dated 26th April, 2012 was in existence at the time of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 19th December, 2012 yet the said circular was not pointed out before the first appellate forum or even mentioned in the memo of appeal before the learned Tribunal. 6. We refuse to be drawn into the aforesaid controversy but we are of the view that if the appellant had placed the Circular dated 26th April, 2012 or any other such circular before the learned Tribunal, as asserted, the appellant may move the learned Tribunal by way of review. 6. We refuse to be drawn into the aforesaid controversy but we are of the view that if the appellant had placed the Circular dated 26th April, 2012 or any other such circular before the learned Tribunal, as asserted, the appellant may move the learned Tribunal by way of review. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties may pass such order as it may deem fit. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is disposed of. We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merit of the case.