9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arg, Judicial Member and Shri Ashok K. Arya, Technical Member Ms. S. Parvathi, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Naveen Kushalappa, Jt. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 13/03/2008 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has set aside the Order-in-original and remanded the case back to the original authority for fresh orders in the light of the directions contained in the Tribunal s Final Order dt. 14/10/2005. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture of tableware and kitchenware. The issue of classification of the products manufactured by them was under d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration in the light of the direction of the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the said order of remand, the appellant preferred the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has not been passed by properly appreciating the directions of the Tribunal and also decisions rendered by the Tribunal. She further submitted that the original authority after considering the directions of the Tribunal has passed the order dt. 21/08/2006. The original authority has also considered the certificate produced by the Chartered Accountant. She further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has no power to remand the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im before the authority. Invoices itself clearly indicate that the assessee had granted benefit of only 25% of the duty element to the customers and that they have to produce the evidence which is to be examined and for that purpose, the Commissioner(Appeals) has remanded the matter back to the original authority to reexamine the evidences produced by the assessee. Further the Commissioner(Appeals) has relied upon the following decisions in support of his findings. i. Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur [1994(71) ELT 989 (Tri.)] ii. S. Kumar [2004(164) ELT 34 (Tri. LB)] 7. We also find that the Commissioner(Appeals) has not passed any order against the appellant and he has only remanded the case back to the origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
