E Stat/77/2000 and E/122/2000, remanding the matter to the Commissioner Appeals .
By the said judgment, the tribunal allowed the assessees appeal claiming deduction for the aforestated seven items of expenditure for the period 9/88 to 3/91.
Ltd. Civil Appeal Nos.3792 3803 of 2000, this Court has partly allowed the departments appeal.
The assessee had claimed deduction from the assessable value in respect of seven items of expenditure, namely, secondary packing, turnover tax, freight, insurance, octroi, handling charges and companyt of bought out items.
Aggrieved by the decision of the tribunal dated 6.1.2000, the department came to this Court by way of civil appeal under section 35 L b of the Act.
However, in view of the change in organizational set up under agreement dated 2.1.1991, the tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner Appeals to reconsider the question of related person under section 4 4 c of the said Act for the period 4/91 to 3/93.
By judgment and order dated 6.1.2000, the tribunal set aside the demand for differential duty raised by the department for the period 1/88 to 8/88 for want of show cause numberice.
M s Akay Cosmetics P Ltd. assessee herein was the manufacturer of instant hair companyour sold under the brand name Bigen falling under chapter sub heading 3305.90 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
They were selling their entire production to M s Nemaru Coiffure for short M s Nemaru .
KAPADIA, J. This is an appeal filed by the revenue under section 35 L b of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for short the 1944 Act against the decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, Chennai hereinafter referred to as the tribunal dated 28.2.2000 in Appeal Nos.
