ORDER : AKIL KURESHI, J. 1. The appellant assessee has challenged an order dated 10.10.2017 passed by CESTAT dismissing the assessee's appeal. Since we propose to remand the proceedings before the Tribunal for fresh decision, since adequate opportunity of hearing was not granted to the assessee before the Tribunal, it is not necessary to record facts in detail. Suffice it to record that before the Tribunal on the said date when the hearing was fixed, request was made by the appellant for adjournment. This is so recorded by the Tribunal in the order also. However, in response to such a request, the Tribunal noted thus “The same is declined as I noticed that the issue falls in a narrow compass”. 2. As per the said order of the Tribunal itself thereafter the Tribunal heard the learned DR, perused the record and grounds of appeal and proceeded to dispose of the appeal which eventually came to be dismissed. 3. From the record it thus clearly emerges that request was made on behalf of the appellant for adjournment. Tribunal refused such a request on the ground that the issues were in narrow compass. Record also reveals that no submissions were made on behalf of the appellant. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal only hearing the representative of the department, perusal of the record and the grounds of appeal. If the Tribunal was of the opinion that because of repeated adjournments or any such similar reason, no case for further adjournment was made out, the request could have been rejected. However the ground that since the issues are in narrow compass, such adjournment should not be granted is a risky one. The Tribunal came to such a conclusion without any assistance from the appellant. In fact, the counsel for the appellant pointed out before us that there were two circulars of the same number issued under the Central Excise Act and another under the Customs Act. CVD was available at 2% without any bar of claiming cenvat credit. We are not suggesting that counsel for the appellant is correct in contending so. We only suggest that the issue requires a proper consideration and disposal after hearing the appellant's arguments also, 4. In the result, impugned order dated 10.10.2017 is set aside. The proceedings are remanded and placed back before the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. We only suggest that the issue requires a proper consideration and disposal after hearing the appellant's arguments also, 4. In the result, impugned order dated 10.10.2017 is set aside. The proceedings are remanded and placed back before the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. We have expressed no opinion on merits of the case. 5. Tax Appeal is disposed of.