JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE Board of Revenue has referred the following questions to this Court for its opinion : (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of para No. 8, operative part of the order of the Honourable Board of Revenue, dated 20th July, 1978 made in appeal Nos. 143 and 143-PBR/77, it could be interpreted that the sales of machinery scrap must be subjected to tax and the penalty under Section 43 (1) of the Act must be imposed ? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the turnover of machinery scrap amounting to Rs. 46,493. 00 sold in the course of inter-State trade and commerce is liable to tax under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ? (c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, remand of the case was necessary and warranted ? ( 2. ) A perusal of the appellate order passed by the Board of Revenue indicates that a photostat copy of an original bill was produced before the Board of Revenue and on the basis of that copy, the Board of Revenue was of the opinion that the matter deserved to be reconsidered after scrutinising the said bill. On this ground, the Board of Revenue remanded the case back to the lower authority with the direction that the original bill dated 30th June, 1969 (of which photostat copy has been filed before the Board) of Rs. 37,136. 97 should be obtained and scrutinised and if the entries are found to be as per the photostat copy, then tax should be imposed on the rate of scrap at 4% and the penalty correspondingly reduced and the case decided according to law. In view of the aforesaid order of remand, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to answer questions (a) and (b) at this stage inasmuch as the answer given by us may ultimately turn out to be only of academic interest in the event of the matter being decided in favour of the assessee in pursuance of the order of remand. ( 3. ( 3. ) AS regards question (c), we are of the opinion that having accepted the photostat copy of the original bill, it was open to the Board of Revenue either to decide the matter itself in second appeal after scrutinising the original bill or the question being one of fact, remand it to the authority below. ( 4. ) IN the result, questions (a) and (b) are returned without any answer on the ground that they are premature at this stage. Our answer to question (c) is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, remand of the case was necessary and warranted. This question is accordingly answered in the affirmative. There shall be no order as to costs.