ORDER
Shri G.A. Brahma Deva (Oral)
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s ITI Ltd against the impugned order dated 7.1.87 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Madras.
2. Shri Krishna Murthy, Finance Manager, appearing for the appellants drew our attention to the findings portion of Central Excise (Appeals) Madras.
2. Shri Krishna Murthy, Finance Manager, appearing for the appellants drew our attention to the findings portion of the impugned order which is as under:
“I have carefully considered the above submissions of the appellants. I find that the Assistant Collector has not denied to the appellants the deductions, on account of Octroi and insurance charges. In fact, the appellants have not produced the documents evidencing payment of octroi and insurance charges for the different clearances. They stated that gate-pass wise, payment of octroi and insurance charges canot be produced. However, they may produce actual octroi and insurance charges incurred by them invoice wise for sales from their depots. If such evidence is produced by appellants within a period of three months from the receipt of this order the Assistant Collector is directed to allow deductions from the prices charged from their depots. As for the adoption of Bombay prices, evidence may be produced by appellants that such price includes cost of supply of boughtout items in addition to the cost of the excisable goods and upon production of such evidence, within the above stated period the Asst. Collector will allow suitable deductions. Except for the above modifications, in the order of the Assistant Collector, the appeal is otherwise rejected.”
He submitted that the party could not produce the relevant documents before the Assistant Commissioner within the stipulated time and accordingly he requests to remand the matter to enable the party to produce evidence in support of their claim. Heard Smt Radha Arun, SDR for the Revenue.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances and in view of the request made by the party to enable him to produce the evidence, we are of the view that one more chance is to be given. In the view we have taken, we are remanding the matter to the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner to decide the issue afresh and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on providing an opportunity to the party. Thus this appeal is disposed off in the above terms.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court)