2006 (2) TMI 166 - SUPREME COURT

Why SSI exemption granted to assessee should not be disallowed and the duty which was not paid for the period December, 1993 and December, 1997 should not be recovered

Held that:- Before us, the parties have placed the entire facts. We may also place on record that it has been conceded before us by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent that the earlier order dated 26-9-2001 shall not operate as a res-judicata but, as noticed hereinbefore, the only contention raised was that once the Revenue accepts a judgment, it cannot raise the said question once again.

As we intend to remit the matter back to the Tribunal we should not make any observation at this juncture which would affect the merit of the matter one way or the other. We may also be misunderstood. Suffice it to say that having regard to the definition of the brand name as contained in Explanation IX to the notification dated 28-2-1993, the matter requires fresh consideration by the Tribunal upon taking into consideration the fact of the matter. If, however, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion or is of the opinion that further investigation in facts may be necessary, it may pass such order or orders as it may think fit and proper. Appeal allowed b way of remand.