Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Sonal Processors I() Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Cce, Jaipur on 13 November, 2000
ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram
1. The above cases involved a common issue and hence are taken up for hearing and disposed of by this common order. The details of the duty confirmed and penalty imposed are as under:-
Sl.No. Appeal No. Duty Penalty
1. E/298/01-NB Rs.10,12,645/- Rs.10,12,645/- + 25 lakhs
2. E/340/01-NB Rs.9,01,785/- Rs.9,01,785/- + 22 lakhs
3. E/341/01-NB Rs.17,96,734/- Rs.17,96,734/- + Rs.1.2 crore
4. E/237/01-NB Rs.15,54,128/- Rs.15,54,128/-
5. E/234/01-NB Rs.1,78,307/- Rs.1,78,307/-
6. E/283/01-NB Rs.99,557/- Rs.1,18,025/-
7. E/286/01-NB Rs.5,02,000/- Rs.5,02,000/- + 43 lakhs
8. E/289/01-NB Rs.9,36,796/- Rs.9,36,796/-
2. For the reasons recorded below, we dispense with pre-deposit of duty and penalty arising as a result of determination of annual capacity of production by including the length of galleries in the length of stenter, proceed to take up the appeals themselves for hearing since the issue stands settled by the decision of Larger Bench in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Limited Vs.CCE reported in 2001(127) ELT 679. The Larger bench has held that the length of galleries are not to be purpose of computing the annual capacity of production in terms of Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. Therefore while following the ratio of the larger bench decision and holding that the length of gallery is required to be excluded, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the cases to the Commissioner for redetermination of the annual capacity of production in the light of the larger bench decision cited (supra).
3. The other issue such as liability to interest for delayed payment etc. which arises in these cases is also to be decided afresh by the Commissioner.
4. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals by remand.