1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.104 OF 2007 M/s.Vishnu dyeing & Printing works. ...Appellant. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise. ...Respondent. --- Mr.M.H.Patil, for Appellant. Mr.Kiran Kandpile, for Respondent. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 16TH July, 2008. P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. Brief facts that are necessary to be considered for making the order that we proposes to make in this appeal are that the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai, on 18.7.2000 has 2 passed the following order:- “ The notification 42/98 CE (N.T.) refers the specified processed fabrics manufactured or produced. The word “manufactured” denotes the goods in respect of which no further manufacturing process is left and the goods are ready for delivery. It is not in dispute that the goods in loose condition are under process and cannot be said to be the “manufactured” as they are not ready for delivery. The reference to Rule 53 and 173G (4) and chapter notes is not relevant in the facts of the present issue and the facts dealt with in this appeal. In the aforesaid view of the case, I set aside the order-in-original in toto.” Thus, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed. M/s.Paramount Silk Mills (P) Ltd. & M/s.Paramount Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), that appeal was disposed of by order dated 12.6.2001. That appeal was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by placing reliance on the order passed in the appeal filed by the appellant, the portion of which we have quoted above. Against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of M/s.Paramount Silk Mills (P) Ltd. & M/s.Paramount Fabrics Pvt.Ltd., an appeal was filed 3 before the Tribunal. That appeal being appeal no.2560 and other connected appeals were of the year 2001. Those appeals were disposed of by order dated 21.7.2005. All those appeals were dismissed. Against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeal of the appellant, appeal no.E/3185/2000 was filed. That appeal was surprisingly allowed by the same Tribunal by order dated 23.11.2005. The present appeal is directed against that order. 2. It is clear from the narration of the events above that the decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals) which are upheld by the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Paramount Silk Mills (P) Ltd. & M/s.Paramount Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. was based on the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of appeal of the appellant. It is obvious, therefore, that the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of “M/s.Paramount Silk Mills (P) Ltd. & M/s.Paramount Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.” and the order passed in the case of the appellant are contradictory orders. In our opinion, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal impugned in this appeal has to be set aside. In our opinion, the Tribunal will have to re-consider the appeal in the light of those orders in the appeals 4 filed by M/s.Paramount Silk Mills (P) Ltd. & M/s.Paramount Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., and the stand of the department of not challenging that order any further and accepting it. 3. In the result, therefore, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned in the appeal is set aside. Appeal no.E/3185/2000 is remitted back for reconsideration and decision in accordance with law and in the lights of the observations made above. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) ---