AGK AGK AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.132 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane - II Commissionerate ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Deco Tubes ..Respondent. Mr.Y.S. Bhate with Mr.S.D. Bhosale for the Appellant. Mr.S.N. Kantawala with Mr.Brijesh Pathak i/by Mr.U.P. Warunjikar for the Respondent. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 27TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C. : 1. Admit. 2. By consent of both the parties heard finally. 3. Perusal of the order of the tribunal shows that so far as the period from April 2000 to October 2003 is concerned, the tribunal has held that the demand was barred by law of limitation because the department was not entitled to the extended period of limitation. So far as the period subsequent to October 2003 is concerned, the tribunal has remanded the matter back for enquiry into the aspect whether the factory of the respondent is situated in rural area, and that he becomes entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. 4. After having heard the learned counsel for both the sides, we find that so far as the period from April 2000 to October 2003 is concerned, the tribunal has not recorded in its order clear finding with reasons as to why the department was not entitled to the extended period of limitation. In our opinion, it was necessary for the tribunal to give reasons why it was holding that the department is not entitled to the extended period of limitation. We find that the reliance placed by the tribunal on the order passed by the tribunal dispensing with pre-deposit was also not proper because that order records only prima facie view. We also find that the finding that has been recorded by the tribunal in para 5, so far as period upto October 2003 is concerned, is only a prima facie finding. If the tribunal was making final order in relation to that period, it was necessary for the tribunal to record its final finding on that issue. 5. So far as other aspect is concerned, the tribunal has remanded the enquiry to find out whether the unit of the respondent-assessee was situated in rural area. If on enquiry, it is found that the department was entitled to the extended period of limitation, so far as period upto October 2003 also, then enquiry into the question whether the unit of the respondent is situated in rural area become relevant. In our opinion, therefore, it would have been just and proper if the tribunal had remanded the matter back on both the questions viz. whether the demand for the period from April 2000 to October 2003 was within the period of limitation as also the unit of the respondent is situated in rural area. In our opinion, such a order will be in the interest of justice. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of in following terms. 6. The order passed by the tribunal in so far as it holds that the demand for the period from April 2000 to October 2003 is barred by limitation is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner for denovo enquiry and decision on this aspect of the matter also. It is directed that the Commissioner shall consider both the questions together viz. one for which the remand order has been made by the tribunal, as also the question for which we remand the matter back. 7. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms. D.K. DESHMUKH, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J.