JUDGMENT Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The appeal arises out of an order of November 9, 2021 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata in a matter on rebound. 2. The order-in-original dated February 28, 2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Shillong was assailed before the Tribunal and it culminated in an order of March 22, 2018. Paragraph 4 of the relevant order of the Tribunal dealt with the present appellant's objection to the additional duty imposed. The Tribunal perceived that the valuation of the goods sold to a related party or a sister concern should have been computed on cost of production basis which was not undertaken by the appellant herein. The Tribunal was of the view that the appellant's computation of its tax liability did not conform to the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. 3. However, notwithstanding the Tribunal upholding the Commissioner's order to the effect that the goods had not been appropriately valued in the transaction with the related party, the Tribunal waived the penalty imposed by the Commissioner without assigning any or appropriate reasons therefor. 4. It is of some significance that the appellant assessee did not question the propriety of the order dated March 22, 2018 and it was only the Department which came up in appeal, restricting the scope of the appeal to that part of the order by which the penalty was waived. The scope of the Department's appeal is evident from the last limb of its prayer in the appeal as it complained of the order dated March 22, 2018 to the extent it sets aside imposition of penalty under Sec.11-AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ...' 5. It is in such context that the order of this Court of March 26, 2019 disposing of the relevant appeal must be seen. This Court observed that Section 11AC(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 envisages that any intent to evade payment of duty would attract penalty. It is in such context that the order of this Court of March 26, 2019 disposing of the relevant appeal must be seen. This Court observed that Section 11AC(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 envisages that any intent to evade payment of duty would attract penalty. This Court emphasised on the expression 'intent to evade payment of duty' and went on to hold that if the entire quantum of duty was refundable, there may not be any intent to evade duty; but when the duty was not 100 per cent refundable, there may be an element of evasion, which has to be ascertained from the facts and the conduct of the assessee. 6. At paragraph 8 of the relevant order, this Court noticed that the CESTAT had not looked into the entire circumstances, particularly a notification of March 27, 2008. The relevant notification of March 27, 2008 reduced the quantum of refund from the entire amount to only the extent to which value had been added in course of the process of the manufacture. At the time that the order of this Court was passed on March 26, 2019, there was a challenge to the notification of March 27, 2008 that was pending before the Supreme Court. However, it is the admitted position that the relevant matter has been disposed of and the notification has been upheld. Thus, the position now is that even in the North-East a manufacturer cannot claim 100 per cent refund of the excise duty or sales tax component, but the extent of refund is limited to the value addition made to the product in course of the manufacture. 7. It is in such circumstances, as appropriately observed in this Court's order of March 26, 2019, that an element of intent to evade payment of duty may arise. Upon this Court's order of March 26, 2019 setting aside the order dated March 22, 2018 to the extent that it was assailed, such part was directed to be reconsidered by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal of November 9, 2021 impugned herein records that the assessee made an attempt to reopen the entire gamut by referring to the apparently wide words used in this Court's order of March 26, 2019 while remanding the matter. The order of the Tribunal of November 9, 2021 impugned herein records that the assessee made an attempt to reopen the entire gamut by referring to the apparently wide words used in this Court's order of March 26, 2019 while remanding the matter. However, quite appropriately, the Tribunal confined to the scope of the remand to the extent to which the initial order of the Tribunal had been assailed in this Court and did not permit the entire matter to be reopened by the assessee. 8. Indeed, the present appeal has also to be confined to the extent that the order impugned deals with the penalty and the order of March 22, 2018 which imposed additional duty cannot be reopened by a side-wind so to say, since the appellant herein had accepted such order and did not complain thereagainst within reasonable time. 9. In discussing the aspect of 'intent to evade', as used in Section 11AC(1)(a) of the Act of 1944, the Tribunal found that once it was established that the assessee had not valued the goods in accordance with the said Rules of 2000 and when the assessee produced no evidence to substantiate its claim of having cleared the goods to the related parties at the prevailing market prices, the intention to evade duty payable would arise and an adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee. The Tribunal also noticed that no effort was made by the assessee to show the prices charged to the related party or compare such prices to those charged to independent parties. The Tribunal noticed that there was a charge against the assessee that it had deliberately over-valued the goods cleared to related parties in an attempt to obtain a higher refund. At the same time, the Tribunal found that the assessee had indulged in under-valuation as per its convenience, 'to short pay the duty amount which has not been rebutted by submitting the prices charged to independent parties.' 10. The Tribunal then referred to the notification of March 27, 2008 that had not been placed before the Tribunal in course of the hearing that culminated in the order dated March 22, 2018 and observed that in view of such notification, the assessee herein was not entitled to complete refund. 11. The Tribunal has furnished adequate reasons to justify the perception that the appellant herein had intended to evade payment of duty. 11. The Tribunal has furnished adequate reasons to justify the perception that the appellant herein had intended to evade payment of duty. The initial order had merely waived the penalty without indicating any reason. Since appropriate reasons relevant to the issue have been indicated in the order impugned upon due considerations being taken into account, the order in appeal does not call for any interference. 12. Accordingly, Central Excise Appeal No.1 of 2022 is dismissed without interfering with the impugned order of the Tribunal dated November 9, 2021. 13. There will, however, be no order as to costs.