Judgment:
1. The short question required to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether slide gate equipment, supplied by the appellant to M/s.
Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, under a contract are manufactured excisable goods classifiable as parts of ladles and falling under heading 8454.00.
2. Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld.adv. appearing for the appellant submits that the adjudicating authority has confirmed demand of duty against the appellant on the ground that by assembly of bought out items along with slide gate refractories at the site of M/s. Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (VSP), the appellants had manufactured slide gate equipment, which are liable to pay duty. A number of pleas have been raised by the ld.adv.in respect of the appellants' contention that no manufacture of slide gate equipment takes place in the appellants' factory and as per the order from M/s. VSP the appellants was to supply different bought out and shop manufactured goods. Shri Roy has also supported the impugned order of the Commissioner by submitting that slide gate mechanism is an excisable product which has come into existence in the appellants' factory. He has also referred to the various clauses of the contract between the appellants and M/s. VSP, wherein the appellants have been considered as the manufacturer by M/s. VSP.3. During the course of arguments Shri Bagaria has also drawn our attention to the fact that the Commissioner in his impugned order has relied on certain enquiries made from M/s. VSP. However it is his contention that no such enquiry was either referred to in the show causes notice or was made available to them at any time during adjudication. As such it is the contention of the ld.adv. that the impugned order which relies upon the enquiry report from M/s. VSP is violative of principles of natural justice. He also draws our attention a certificate taken by the appellant from M/s. VSP on 28.9.94 i.e.
subsequent to passing of the impugned order, which supports their case and indicates that it was M/s. VSP who carried out the installation of the equipment supplied by the appellants. We feel that inasmuch as the enquiry conducted by the Revenue from M/s. VSP and relied upon by the adjudicating authority has not been supplied to the appellants and inasmuch as M/s. VSP's certificate obtained by the appellant is post adjudication, the matter should be considered afresh by the adjudicating authority after supply of enquiry report to the appellant and after considering VSP certificate dt. 28.9.94, which will have bearing on the contentious issue in question. With these observations and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication after following the directions, as indicated above. Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.