TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the Departmental Representative, Shri Chopra for the Revenue, we find : (a) this matter has been remanded to the lower authority twice earlier. The last remand by CEGAT was with directions as follows : 2. Shri Satnam Singh, SDR appearing for the appellants/Revenue submitted that the matter is covered by the Tribunal s Larger Bench decision in the case of Namtech Systems Ors. v. CCE, Bangalore [2000 (36) RLT 35 (CEGAT-Larger Bench)]. He is not aware as what happened to the earlier order relied upon by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in his order. 3. As the Appellate authority has relied upon his earlier order and it is not clear as what happened to that order and as similar issue has come up for consideration befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emption on disputed parts to the appellants in terms of erstwhile Notification No. 175/86. It is also clarified that in the case of Namtech Systems reported in [2000 (36) RLT 35], stated that Larger Bench is not pari materia with the present case on the issues decided therein. The Tribunal was considering the question of eligibility to SSI exemption when goods contained in the brand name of foreign manufacturer or a trader who is not a manufacturer. However, Tribunal had also while remanding the matter to this authority taken cognizance of earlier order decided by the Tribunal for consideration in remand. This order of the Tribunal had issued against the order-in-appeal decided by Commissioner (Appeals) against the order-in-original of Addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o arrive at the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 to branded goods vide Explanation 7. He has nowhere come to a definite finding that what are the brand names/trade names of another person are used. Merely a finding that the cover for starters bearing Siemen s brand name are being manufactured will not suffice the embargo placed by Explanation 7 to the availment of the benefit of Notification No 175/86 in terms of the decision in Namtech Systems Ors. v. CCE, Bangalore. Therefore, not only the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not complied with the remand order, the order as it is cannot be upheld on merits. We also find that the Board s instructions on this subject have not been considered and differentiated by the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
