2013 (3) TMI 524

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hereinafter called "The Tribunal") in Order No. 768/04-NR-C. 3. By impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal essentially by placing reliance on one decision of the Tribunal reported in Franco Italian Company Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-II [2000 (120) E.L.T. 792 (Tri.-LB)]. 4. So the short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appellant's appeal and if not, then what orders are called for? 5. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial question of law :- "Whether in the facts of the case, a manufacturer is entitled to exemption under the Notification No. 1/1993-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 and also under the M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 8. When we read the decision of Franco supra, then we find that it was based on the earlier decision of the Tribunal reported in Faridabad Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 1993 (63) E.L.T. 759. Indeed the Tribunal in Franco case held that since the view taken by the Tribunal in Faridabad Tools' case is upheld by the Supreme Court because Revenue's appeal arising therefrom was dismissed and hence Tribunal's view taken in Faridabad Tools has attained finality and has to be followed. This is what the Tribunal while deciding the case of Franco observed and held. "4. Insofar as the availing of Modvat and the full exemption under small scale exemption Notification, on different specified goods is concerned, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the case of Kamani. This is what their Lordships held in the case of Ramesh Food. "11. The view expressed in Kamani Foods' case (supra) is irreversible and projects a correct analysis of the relevant aspects. We affirm the view. Contrary view taken in Faridabad Tools' case (supra) is not correct." 10. In our view, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ramesh Food Products, it is now the law laid down that the view taken by the Tribunal in Kamani's Case is the correct one and has to be applied while deciding the issue involved in any case being the correct view. Indeed in such circumstances, it has now become the view of the Supreme Court on the issue involved. 11. It is not in dispute that th....