9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1051X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No. SDK(2167) 189/MI/2003 dated 29.08.2003. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein were engaged in the manufacture of yarn They were selling the yarn in the open market from the factory gate as per the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944, and also cap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before us is that the goods captively consumed i.e. yarn is different than the yarn which are sold by them. It is their submission that the yarn which is sold by them undergoes further process. The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance in the case of CCE Mumbai IV vs. Century Textiles & Indus. Ltd. - 2002 (142) ELT 645. 5. We find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) whil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecifically Rule 6(b)(i) or 6(b) (ii) as the case may be. In such a case of remand by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to the adjudicating authority we would not like to interfere in the matter and pass an order on merit of the case. 6. In view of this, we find that the matter needs to be adjudicated by the adjudicating authority keeping in mind the direction issued by the learned Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
