ORDER
P.C. Jain, Member (T)
1. A preliminary point was raised by Shri K.K. Bhatia, learned JCDR, that an appeal filed by the department No. 174/85-B1 against the same impugned order namely Order-in-appeal No. 26/Col/84 dated 18-9-1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, has been decided by the Tribunal in its Order No. 86/91-B1, dated 27 June, 1989 setting aside the said impugned order and remanding the matter back to the Collector (Appeals) for reconsideration. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order having been set aside already by the Tribunal by the aforesaid order the present appeal of the appellants herein M/s. SAIL is not maintainable against the same impugned order even though the issue in the present appeal is different one inasmuch as the impugned order no longer survives.
2. Learned advocate, Shri N. Mukherjee opposes the aforesaid preliminary objection taken by the Revenue. He submits that the order of the Tribunal dated 27th June, 1989, mentioned by the learned JCDR, is very specific and sets aside the said order only in respect of the two items, namely, ‘fish plates’ and ‘sleeper bars’. The order of remand dated 27-6-1989 of the Tribunal does not at all touch upon the issue of classification of the wheels and axles in the present appeal. He, therefore, submits, it cannot be said that the impugned order in the matter of classification of wheels and axles has been set aside. Hence, he asserts that the present appeal is maintainable.
3. After hearing both the sides we overruled the preliminary objection of the learned JCDR. In this connection we agree with the learned advocate for the appellants herein that the order of remand dated 27-6-1989 by the Tribunal is very specific and confines itself only to ‘sleeper bars’ and ‘fish plates’, as is apparent from para 8 of the said order reproduced below :-
“We observe that the dispute remains only with regard to two items namely, ‘sleeper bars’ and ‘fish plates’. Both the sides have stated that the Collector (Appeals) has not recorded any specific findings and not given any specific grounds or reasons in the operative portion of his order . In view of this position, we set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) in so far it relates to the four items to which the appeal relates and remand the matter back to him for re-consideration of the matter regarding two items which remain in dispute with the direction that he should give, specific reasons for his conclusions at the time of passing the final order, after giving the Respondents herein an opportunity of being heard, if they so desire.”
Thereafter we heard the learned counsels on the question of classification of wheels and axles and the following order was recorded and pronounced in the open Court :-
“Matter remanded to the Assistant Collector who will adjudicate de novo taking into account the additional grounds filed by the appellant herein on the question of classification of wheels and axles. He may also take into account the department’s miscellaneous application dated 21-3-1990 (Received in Registry on 22-3-1990). This has become necessary because the additional evidence brought on record by both sides now was not before the original authority.”
4. Appeal disposed of in the above terms.