2009 (2) TMI 166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2983/2002, 4875/2004 and 1147-1148 & 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 H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. In this case, according to the appellant, 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 dispo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1-2008 in Civil Appeal No. 2727 of 2007, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s and on perusal of the records, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court remitted 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 qu....