Judgment S. H. KAPADIA, J. ( 1 ) 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 appeals Nos. E/stat/77 of 2000 and E/122 of 2000, remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals ). ( 2 ) M/s. AKAY Cosmetics (P) Ltd. (assessee herein) was the manufacturer of instant hair colour 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. There was a dispute on the valuation of goods for the period January 1988 to March 1993. 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 cost of bought-out items. ( 3 ) BY judgment and order dated 6/1/2000, the Tribunal set aside the demand for differential duty raised by the Department for the period January 1988 to August 1988 for want of show-cause notice. By the said judgment, the Tribunal allowed the assessees appeal claiming deduction for the aforestated seven items of expenditure for the period September 1988 to march 1991. However, in view of the change in organisational 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 April 1991 to March 1993. ( 4 ) 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 (6) of the Act. ( 5 ) BY judgment delivered by this Court today in the case of CCE v. Akay cosmetics (P) Ltd. this Court has partly allowed the Departments appeal. However, the order of remand on the question of "related person" during the period April 1991 to March 1993 has been upheld. ( 6 ) IN the present appeal, 11 show-cause notices were issued by the department calling upon the assessee as to why the deduction in respect of the above seven items should not be disallowed for the period April 1993 to june 1997. ( 6 ) IN the present appeal, 11 show-cause notices were issued by the department calling upon the assessee as to why the deduction in respect of the above seven items should not be disallowed for the period April 1993 to june 1997. Since the question of "related person" had been remanded to the commissioner (Appeals) by the Tribunal under its earlier order dated 6/1/2000, the dispute on the same point of "related person" for the period April 1993 to June 1997 was also required to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals ). In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. ( 7 ) BEFORE concluding, we may point out that in the case of CCE v. Akay cosmetics (P) Ltd. it has been held that on and after 1/4/1991, the two entities, namely, M/s Akay Cosmetics (P) Ltd. and M/s Nemaru were not related persons. For the aforestated reasons, there is no merit in this civil appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.