1999 (5) TMI 263

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pondent. [Order per : A.C.C. Unni, Member (J)]. Arguing the four stay Applications Ld. Sr. Counsel, Shri Hidyatullah draws attention to the unconditional stay order passed by the S.R.B. of this Tribunal in the Appellants own case vide Order No. Stay/855/98, dated 25-8-1998. 2. The ld. Counsel submits that the issue involved relates to whether the activity engaged in by the applicants .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ons of the Tribunal and the higher Courts as to what can be considered manufacture for purposes of section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. He also submitted that the Tribunal had in the case of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertiliser v. C.C.E. - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 47 (Tribunal) held that for the purpose of consistency, the Tribunal should normally follow the interim order passed by a co-ordinate Bench. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion XVI of the C.E.T.A. in this connection. Ld. D.R. also drew attention to the Tribunal Judgment in Bharat Berg Ltd. v. C.C.E., Allahabad 1995 (78) E.L.T. 98 (T) wherein Tribunal had held that earlier stay order has no precedent value for correct enunciation of law. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. Having regard to the fact that the process involved is the same and the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X