P. Lakshmana Reddy, Chairman - (1.) THESE four appeals have been filed by one and the same appellant aggrieved against the orders of Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Sec'bad Division, Hyderabad remanding the matter back to the assessing authority i.e., Commercial Tax Officer, Basheerbagh Circle, Hyderabad. As common issues are involved in all these appeals, they are heard together and are disposed off by this common order. The particulars of the appeals are furnished in the following table: Facts: The appellant M/s. Softfoam Industries Pvt. Ltd. are registered dealers in P.U. Foam and its products and are assessees on the rolls of Commercial Tax Officer, Basheerbagh Circle, Hyderabad. The appellant expanded its production facilities and the expanded unit commenced production with effect from 10 -6 -1998. The appellant applied for industrial incentives under G.O.Ms. No. 108, Industries & Commerce (I.P.) Dept, dated 20 -5 -1996 & G.O.Ms. No. 134, Ind. & Commerce Dept., dated 1 -7 -1996. The appellant was issued Final Eligibility Certificate dated 26 -12 -1998, granting deferment of tax of Rs. 2,33,24,564/ - for a period of 14 years from 10 -6 -1998 to 9 -6 -2012, with a condition to avail the deferment of tax on the production over and above the base production of 2034 Tons. Accordingly, the assessing authority granted deferment of tax on the production over and above base production fixed on quantity basis. Subsequently, the self -same assessing authority has revised his own assessment and withdrew the deferment of tax so granted in the original assessment order and passed the impugned revised order raising the disputed demand on the plea that as per G.O.Ms. No. 75, Ind. & Com. Dept., dated 14 -3 -1996 and the CCT's Ref. No. AII(3)/2846/96, dated 12.5.1997, the deferment of tax could be granted on the basis of turnover relatable to the base production and accordingly the turnover relatable to the production made during the impugned asst. years was less than the turnover relatable to the base production, and so, the appellant was not eligible for deferment of sales tax. The assessing authority arrived the turnover relatable to the base quantity of 2034 Tons at Rs. 36,61,20,000/ - by applying the current production cost at Rs. 1,80,000/ - per ton scored by the appellant during the relevant assessment years and withdrew the deferment of taxes, which was granted by the original assessing authority. Aggrieved by the revised asst. orders passed by the CTO, Basheer Bagh Circle dated 14 -11 -2003, the assessee dealer preferred appeal to the Learned ADC(CT), Sec'bad Division, both on jurisdiction and on merits. The Learned Appellate Authority having accepted the arguments put -forth by the learned counsel for the appellant, set -aside the impugned revision of assessments and remanded the matter to the assessing authority with a direction to grant deferment of sales tax to the appellant for the impugned assessment years; strictly basing on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of M/s. Orient Cement v. State of A.P. in TA No. 774/2002, Dt. 27 -9 -2003. Aggrieved by the orders passed of ADC(CT), Sec'bad Division, the appellant preferred the present batch of appeals before this Tribunal.
(2.) IN the grounds of appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of Appellate DC in so far as it relates to remand of the matter back to the self -same assessing authority, instead of allowing the appeals, is contrary to law, facts and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case; further, the ADC having categorically held at page 4 of his order that in the present case the assessing authority has no fresh material de -hors the assessment record and the impugned revision definitely amounts to change of opinion and so the same is not sustainable in view of the decisions discussed by him and the ADC having further held "on this ground alone, the impugned revision assessment can be set -aside" is not justified in remanding the matter back to the CTO instead of allowing the appeal on this ground. The Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Authority having held that the method adopted by the CTO in the revised asst. order is not correct and that the assessing authority could not act contrary to the final eligibility certificate issued by the Ind. & Com. Department. He ought to have allowed the appeal instead of remanding the same. Further, the method adopted by the original assessing authority was the correct method. The appellate authority should not have remanded the matter back to the CTO when all the particulars regarding the quantity produced by the appellant during the year was available in the revised asst. order itself and remanding the matter back to the CTO unnecessarily creates multiplicity of proceedings, when the ADC has also accepted that the appellant has satisfied the test laid down by the Hon'ble Tribunal in Orient Cement case in TA No. 774/2002, dated 27 -9 -2003 for availing the deferment of tax.
(3.) DURING the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal. On the other hand, the learned SR supported the orders of Appellate DC.;