ORDER : 1. Application No. 1/2019 : For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application is allowed. Central Excise Appeal No. 10/2019 : Issue notice. Mr. Vipul Singhvi, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent. (2) With consent of Learned Counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. 3. The appellant-assessee manufactures Zinc; for manufacturing purposes, it generates electricity for captive consumption. For the relevant period, a show cause notice was issued demanding that the penalty should not be imposed and credit should not be reversed in respect of CENVAT credit claimed for electricity weld out to sister concern and also excess power generated and made over to the AWNL. The adjudication culminated in an order adverse to the assessee which came in appeal. 4. The appellant's grievance is that the appeal before the Tribunal had expressly noticed its submission in the cross-objection (preferred by it since it succeeded on one aspect) that the duty by way of reversal of the credit had been paid and in respect of credit for electricity weld out to the sister concern. 5. The appellant-assessee complains that despite noticing this argument, the cross-objection has been dismissed. The relevant extract of the CESTAT order in this regard is as follows: "2. The brief facts of the case are that during the period under consideration (April, 2011 to July, 2012), the respondent-assessee was manufacturing Lead, Zinc ores etc. and was availing cenvat credit on the common inputs and input services used in the captive power plant and generated power which was used captively as well as transferred to their sister concern and excess power was sold to M/s. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (Electricity Board) on which the appellant have already paid the duty by way of reversal of the credit. In the present case, the dispute is pertaining to the cenvat credit on the power generated transferred and supply to their sister concern. By the impugned order, the relief was given to the appellant. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the appellant." 6. In the present case, the dispute is pertaining to the cenvat credit on the power generated transferred and supply to their sister concern. By the impugned order, the relief was given to the appellant. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the appellant." 6. After hearing counsel, this Court is of the opinion that CESTAT correctly noticed the appellant's grievance that it was sought to be penalized in respect of an assumed wrong doing even though according to it the credit had been reversed at the appropriate stage, in respect of an electricity weld out to AWNL. 7. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the assessee's cross-objections have to be heard afresh and decided on its merits. The impugned order is therefore set aside to that extent and the matter is remitted to the CESTAT which shall issue fresh notice and hear the parties. 8. The revenue/respondents are directed not to take any coercive action during the pendency of the cross-objections before the CESTAT. 9. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.