Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
M/S Ujagar Prints vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 7 August, 2001
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. On hearing both sides on the stay application the appeal itself was taken up for disposal on granting the prayer for waiver of predeposit.
2. The appellants were operating under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. Vide Order No.V.T.Ch.54 (30)26/98 dt. 11.10.99, their Annual Production Capacity and the quantum of compounded duty were determined. In this determination the rail length of galleries had also been included. Against that order an appeal was filed. The CEGAT Vide Order No. C-I/2080-81/WZB/2000 dt. 2.6.2000 allowed the appeal by way of remand. This was on the ground that the expert opinion needed verification. The law was subsequently laid down that the rail length of galleries was not to be taken into account for determining the number of chambers. [Larger Bench decision int eh case of [Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise] 2001 (127) ELT 679 (Tri.-LB)].
3. In the meanwhile on 9.9.99 the assessees requested for physical removal of the galleries and for resultant re-determination or capacity. In the re-determination also some portion of the galleries was taken into account resulting in a higher duty lability being fastened upon the assessees. Hence the present appeal.
4. In view of the law as settled by the judgment referred to above we could have disposed of this appeal but for the fact that for the earlier period their appeal in remand is yet to be decided by the Commissioner. We allow this appeal and remand the proceedings back to the Commissioner. he shall hear the assessees on both matters together and pass appropriate orders in obeyance of the Larger Bench decision.
5. (Pronounced in Court)