Judgment:
1. Vide the present impugned Order contested by the Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) has remended the appeals filed before him, for following the earlier Order of the Tribunal in the respondents' own case. The relevant portion of the impugned Order of the Commissioner is reproduced below:- I have gone through the case records and the various submissions made on behalf of the appellant. Since all the five cases are similar in nature except for the period and amount involved, I proceed to dispose of all the five appeals by passing a common order. The point for decision is whether the goods cleared were complete machines or parts of the said machines and whether these were classifiable under Chapter sub-heading No. 84.28 and 8474.10 or under chapter heading 84.31, 8474.90 / 7318.10 /8431.00 /8505.00/8483/8501.00/7312.10 i.e. on merits as components or parts of machines.
In a recent decision Hon'ble CEGAT in its order No. A-165/CAL/2001 dated 16.02.2001 in the appellant's own case and on the same issue has observed that: '10. After giving our careful consideration to the above submissions, we are in agreement with the submission made by the Learned Advocate that contract entered into between appellant and their buyers is of a complete machine and that the duty is being paid by the appellant on the cost of the entire machine, after bringing the bought out items in their factory and clearing the entire in CKD or SKD condition. If that be so, it has to be necessarily held that it is the machine which is cleared on semi-knocked down or completely knocked down condition and the same had to be assessed accordingly. In these circumstances it is not to be held that the appellants are only clearing parts and components of the complete system. This has been the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Vishwa Industrial Company Private Ltd. However, it is not clear as to whether the appellants are bringing the bought out parts and equipments in their factory and then clearing entire parts as system either in SKD or CKD condition. It is also observed by the Adjudicating Authority that in some of the case parts, required for constituting complete machine are in excess of the number required for that machines in which case it has to be held that it is the parts and not the complete machine cleared from the factory.
11. Inasmuch as the number of purchase orders are involved in the present appeal, we direct the Commissioner to look into each one of them in the light of the observations made by us in the preceding paragraph. Accordingly we set aside this portion of the Order and remit the matter to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication.' In view of the above observations of the CEGAT, I remand these five cases to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration. He should look into the each case in the light of observations made by the CEGAT in the preceding paragraph and decide classification and rate of duty accordingly." 2. The Revenue in their appeals have contended that the Commissionerate have not accepted the earlier Tribunal's Order and have sent a proposal to the Board for filing Civil Appeals against the same. The Board has also decided to file the appeals. However, it is seen that the appeals are still in the process of being filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is no Order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court staying operation of the said Order of the Tribunal which has been followed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, we do not find any merits in the Revenue's appeals and reject the same.