9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & 1419-1420/2002 Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri B.S. Suhag, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.K. Das, Member (J)].- Common issue involved in these appeals and, therefore, all are being taken together up for disposal. 2. These appeals have been taken up for hearing in pursuance of the Order dated 16-11-2007 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since the issue was not raised at any stage the Department was not given any opportunity to prove that the product in question was in fact being 'manufactured' within the definition of the word in the Central Excise Act. Delay condoned. Issue notice limited to the question as to why the matter should not be remanded back to the Tribunal for disposal". Although counsel for the respondents insist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in the case of CCE, Noida v. Ellora Mechanical Products Pvt. Ltd., set aside the Tribunal's Order No. 103/2005 dated 4-2-2005. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below:- "Heard learned counsel for this parties. In terms of our Order dated 16-11-2007 in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Kuner Industries Ltd. Anr. In C.A. Nos. 3814-3817 of 2005 the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted the matter to the Tribunal to decide the matter after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Metlex (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 129 (S.C.). It is revealed from the above decision that the Revenue contended that they have not given any opportunity to prove that the goods in question was in fact being manufactured within the definition of the Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
