1. The short point involved in the present appeal is as to whether the steel cassettes manufactured by the appellants with the brand name of their customers, would be entitled to the benefit of Notification No.175/86-CE. The lower authorities have held that the benefit is not available inasmuch as the cassettes are apparently directly used by M/s. Tata Refractories and sold as their product. However, it is the contention of the learned Advocate, Shri K.K. Banerjee appearing for the appellants that in the subsequent proceedings, the original adjudicating authority has himself held that it is not the cassettes which are being sold by M/s. Tata Refractories and it is the product manufactured by M/s. Tata Refractories, which is further brought to the market for being bought and sold. The goods being manufactured by the appellants. i.e.steel cassettes, are not traded and hence they are not hit by the mischief of para 7 of the Notification in question. By observing so, the Deputy Commissioner has already granted them the benefit of the said Notification for the subsequent periods.
3. We find that the Deputy Commissioner vide his Order-in-Original No.184-185(72)D-111/91/SBP-I/99 dated 10.9.99 had dropped the findings against the appellants for the subsequent periods by extending them the benefit of Notification No. 175/86.
4. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned Order and remand the mater to the Deputy Commissioner for de novo adjudication in the light of the subsequent development. Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.