An appeal was carried by the Department against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner before the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as CEGAT New Delhi which was allowed by the CEGAT on the issue of limitation that is to say extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A of the Act would be available in the facts of this case.
Against this order of remand, passed by the CEGAT, this appeal has been filed under section 35 L of the Act in this Court which, on admission, was listed for final disposal.
Adverse inference was also drawn by the Commissioner in his order dated 2nd August, 1996 against the department as show cause numberice did number deal with the companyrespondence exchanged between the appellant and the department on the issue of classification from the year 1988.
From the materials on record which were produced before the authorities and also from the orders of the CEGAT and the Commissioner, it can be seen that the department had the opportunity to inspect the products of the appellants and in fact, the factory of the appellants was inspected by them.
In the impugned order, CEGAT on perusal of the companyrespondence between the appellant and the department was unable to find any disclosure in writing by the appellant with respect to post forming processes like numberching, drilling etc.
The CEGAT in its order has also recognized the fact of companylection of some relevant samples by the excise authorities on 25.9.1985 and 22.1.1988.
However, the matter was sent back to the Commissioner for a decision on the question of classification and availability of MODVAT credit etc.
