TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the assessee is that the Commissioner while passing the impugned order had not followed the directions given by this Tribunal in Final Order No. 401-402/02-B, dated 27-8-2002 remanding the assessee's appeal for fresh consideration. 2. Going through the order of this Tribunal dated 27-8-2002, we find that the following directions were given to the Commissioner: "In our view, the issue des ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E, Jaipur v. Man Structurals Ltd. [2001 (130) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.)]. The Commissioner while passing the impugned order has not taken into account the ratio of the law laid down in all the above referred cases. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner is set aside and the matter is sent back to the Commissioner for fresh decision in the light of the ratio of the law laid down in the above ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Wainganga Sahkari S. Karkhana Ltd. reported in [2002 (142) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.) = 2002 (50) RLT 125]. As mentioned earlier while remanding the matter this Tribunal directed the Commissioner to consider the assessee's case in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Man Structurals Ltd. reported in [2001 (130) E.L.T. 401]. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ural items like Ducts, Flanges etc. was considered. Following the ratio of the decision in the case of Wainganga Sahakari S. Karkhana Ltd. the Tribunal took the view that erection of ducts etc. at site could not be considered "excisable goods". 5. We find that the ratio in the above decisions has to be applied in the facts of the present case. Since we come to the conclusion that the duty demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
