TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (4) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom both the members of the bench who referred the question ? 2) Whether on the basis of the opinion of the third member, upon the matter being referred to the bench, the order of remand passed by the bench is ambiguous and equivocal ? 3. We thought it fit to dispose of the appeal itself at this stage and we considered the matter accordingly. 4. The show cause notice dated 30th September, 2001 was issued alleging therein that the appellants manufactured stators of sub-heading 8503.00 by the process of riveting and cleating of chapter sub-heading 8312.00 and had removed the said goods as second sale under the guise of trading of 'Electrical Motor Stampings' without payment of du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds the Central Excise duty, should not be appropriated against the duty amount demanded and/or fine and/or penalty imposed, if any, 5. The appellants filed reply to the show cause notice on 30th September, 2001 and refuted the allegations. It was submitted that cleated and riveted stampings sold by them were not sold as stator as they require much more processes to become stators. Only because these are used in electric motors after stator processing would not make them stators or a part of electric motor. The electric stampings in riveted or cleated forms do not possess the property of stator nor these are capable of being used as stators in that stage as they have not been equipped with stator properties. In common parlance, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not advert to this aspect, the matter needed to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority to reach the conclusion as to whether the activity carried on by the first appellant amounts to manufacture. According to him, the other issues regarding eligibility of credit and working out of duty and the penalty could be re-determined as per settled law. 9. In the light of difference of opinion amongst the members of the bench, the following question was referred to the third member. Whether in the facts of this case, the matter is required to be remitted back to redetermine the question of manufacture and other issues thereafter or the appeals are required to be dismissed ? 10. The President of the Tribunal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e reference and could opine on the point which was not the difference of opinion. He ought to have confined to the difference between the two members as was reflected in the question referred to him. We hold that the third member could not go beyond the question and he erred in taking a view different from both the members. 13. Upon receipt of the opinion of the third member, the disposal of the appeal by the bench that the appeal is allowed as remanded is highly ambiguous. What is the scope of remand is not clarified. If the bench meant remand of appeal is confined to recomputation of assessable value and redetermination of duty amount as observed by the third member, then the remand is bad-in-law as the order of third member is beyond th....