EUREKA FORBES LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARGUING the four stay Applications Ld. Sr. Counsel, Shri Hidyatullah draws attention to the unconditional stay order passed by the S.R.B. of this Tribunal in the Appellants' own case vide Order No. Stay/855/98, dated 25 -8 -1998.

(2.) THE ld. Counsel submits that the issue involved relates to whether the activity engaged in by the applicants in putting together certain bought out items and packing them and marketing them with their brand name would amount to manufacture. He submits that on similar facts four different Commissionerates had passed orders dropping the duty demand. The S.R.B. had taken note of the said orders as well as the question whether the activities engaged in by the Applicants would amount to manufacture in terms of section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. The ld. Counsel further submits that the S.R.B. of this Tribunal, after considering the submissions made on behalf of the present applicants, had given full waiver of pre -deposit and penalty demanded by the Commissioner in the impugned order before them and Recovery of demand had been stayed till the pendency of the appeal. He also relied on certain decisions of the Tribunal and the higher Courts as to what can be considered 'manufacture' for purposes of section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. He also submitted that the Tribunal had in the case of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertiliser v. C.C.E. -1996 (88) E.L.T. 47 (Tribunal) held that for the purpose of consistency, the Tribunal should normally follow the interim order passed by a co -ordinate Bench. Ld. Counsel pleaded for unconditional stay of the said orders pending hearing of the Appeals on the lines of order passed by the S.R.B. referred to above.

(3.) THE ld. DR Shri Sharma brought to our notice that the orders of the Commissioners dropping the proceedings against the Appellants had not considered certain aspects relating to the components which were put together by the Applicants before marketing them with their brand name and therefore those decisions are distinguishable on facts. He also drew attention in this connection to the Tribunal decision in APIC Industries v. C.C.E. 1993 (68) E.L.T. 357 wherein the Tribunal has held that the question whether Acqua Guard was complete water filter without purifier was not beyond doubt. He also drew our attention to Section note 6 of Section XVI of the C.E.T. A. in this connection. Ld. D.R. also drew attention to the Tribunal Judgment in Bharat Berg Ltd. v. C.C.E., Allahabad 1995 (78) E.L.T. 98 (T) wherein Tribunal had held that earlier stay order has no precedent value for correct enunciation of law.