2017 (2) TMI 761

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant. Shri H.M. Dixit, Asstt. Commr. (AR), for the  Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Raju, Member (T)]. - M/s. Pefco Foundry is engaged in the manufacture of castings and cast articles of iron and steel falling under Chapter Heading 73.25. The appellant's claim for benefit of Notification No. 275/88-C.E., dated 4-11-1988 was rejected by the original adjudicating authority and the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ied out on SG Iron castings and Spacer rings, we remand the issue as to whether any proof-machining was carried out on SG Iron castings and Spacer rings to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner and if on verification it is found by him that the claim of the appellants that no proof-machining is carried out on these two items is correct, then the benefit of Notification 275/88 shall be extended....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... demand. He pointed out that the Dy. Commissioner made a physical verification in the factory and found that there was no proof-machining being done at the factory but ignored those facts. He pointed out that they had earlier in the first round of litigation taken up the issue regarding the allegation of proof-machining in the said products before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. He ar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cording to the appellant, physical verification resulted in findings that no proof-machining was done on SG Iron castings and Spacer rings. It has been argued by the learned Counsel that the lower authorities have ignored the evidence of physical verification and relied on the record of personal hearing at the first stage of adjudication in the first round of litigation. We find that it was not op....