ORDER
G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. Arguing for the appellants Shri G. Shiv Das, learned Advocate submitted that two issues are to be considered in these two appeals. He said that it was charged by the department that appellant M/s. Hira Cement and M/s. Hira Industries Ltd. are related persons. He said that this was the only issue agitated before the authorities below. However, before the Tribunal he concedes that they are related persons. As regards other issue, he said, i.e. statutory deductions in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(i) and 4(2) which was neither claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority nor was considered. This being a statutory deductions even at the appellate stage it can be claimed. In support of his contention he referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Snow White Industrial Corporation v. CCE reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 360 (S.C.). Particularly he drew our attention to para 13 and 14 of the said order wherein it was held that permissible deductions allowed even if not claimed before the Tribunal or in the ground of appeals to the Supreme Court. Apart from this issue, he also submitted that the party is entitled to small scale benefit in terms of Notification No. 175/86.
2. Heard Shri P.K. Jain, learned SDR who reiterated the findings given by the authorities below.
3. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that all along before the authorities below the party was agitating that M/s. Hira Industries Ltd. was an independent buyer. Price at which the goods are sold by M/s. Hira Industries cannot be taken as a basis in determining the assessable value. It appears that in view of this plea the party has not taken a plea with reference to the statutory deduction in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(i) and 4(2) of the Act. This being the statutory deduction in view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above are to be allowed even at the appellate stage as it was observed by the Supreme Court. In view of this position, we are of the view that it is appropriate that this issue requires to be examined by the jurisdictional adjudicating authority. Since we are remanding this matter to the concerned adjudicating authority, the party is at liberty to raise the other connected pleas before the adjudication proceedings.
3. Thus, these two appeals are allowed by way of remand.