2002 (1) TMI 1055 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the impugned order allowing the appeal of the assessee.
2. Interpretation of the term 'any other equipment' as per Explanation I to the Rule.
3. Request for remand to examine the case in light of the Larger Bench decision.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II filed an appeal against the impugned order that favored the assessee based on a previous judgment. The appeal was made on the grounds that the original Adjudicating authority did not give any finding regarding a specific aspect of the case.

2. The learned SDR highlighted the judgment of the Larger Bench in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. v. C.C.E., Jaipur, where it was observed that certain criteria need to be met for an equipment to be considered as part of the manufacturing process. The Tribunal clarified that a gallery without certain attachments cannot be classified as 'any other equipment' as per Explanation I to the Rule. The Tribunal decided that the case required further examination in light of this clarification.

3. After considering the submissions and the case-law cited, the Tribunal agreed that the case should be remanded for reevaluation by the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner. The Tribunal found that the original decision did not consider the clarification provided by the Larger Bench, making it necessary to review the case based on the updated interpretation of the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the stay petitions and allowed the appeals by way of remand, directing a reexamination of the case in accordance with the observations made in the Larger Bench decision.