The companytroversy, to be appreciated, requires narration of certain background facts.
The seller retains the property in the packing material.
Initially the dispute related to payment of duty of excise on the value of goods manufactured i.e. soda ash, after exclusion of post manufacturing expenses.
E/1073 1090/90 A, E/4285 4289/90 A, E/4293 4294/91 A, E/4296 4322/91 A, whereby the tribunal has number accepted the letters dated 15.12.1970, 01.02.1971 and 02.04.1971 to bring out the arrangement for the return of durable packing, namely, gunny bags, for reuse as packing material for selling the soda ash in bulk.
This Court had referred to certain paragraphs of the order passed by the tribunal and thereafter passed the following order The aforesaid paragraphs clearly demonstrate that the Tribunal has followed the reasoning that it had followed for the period 1981 to 1985.
My learned brother after arriving at the abovementioned companyclusion has remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for adjudication in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court.
As is evident, proceedings for the entire period were taken in three companypartments, namely, 1970 75, 1976 1980 and 1981 1985.
Dispute with regard to these gunny bags between the assessee and revenue have arisen for the period from 1970 to 1985.
The present batch of appeals relates to the period 1981 1985.
Dipak Misra, J. In this batch of appeals, the appellant calls in question the assailability of judgment and order dated 6.9.2000 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi for short the tribunal in Appeal Nos.
