Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Manohar Lal Kapoor & Sons Ltd. vs Cce, Allahabad on 28 February, 2001
ORDER
P.G. Chacko
1. Heard both sides on the ROA application. The appeal heappened to be dismisses for default on 27.10.2000 since nobody was available to represent the appellant on that day. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that he happened to be out of station in connection with celebration of Diwali festival which fell on the previous day and, therefore, he could not attend to the case on 27.10.2000. He further submits that, on 27.10.2000 at around 10.00 AM, he had faxed a request for adjournment to the Registry. He has also shown me Confirmation Report of the Fax Message indicating its receipt by the addressee at 1004 Hrs. on 27.10.2000. I believe this submission and allow this application. The appeal stands restored to its original number.
2. Ld. Advocate further submits that the issue involved in the appeal stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by a decision of this Tribunal's Larger Bench and, therefore, he prays for final disposal of the appeal at this stage. He has also cited the Larger Bench decision in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2001 (42) RLT 428 (CEGAT-L.B)].
3. Ld. JDR Sh. A.K. Jain has prayed for posting the appeal for regular hearing to future date. He has, however, no case that the issue is not covered by the cited decision.
4.The present appellant is an independent processor working under the compounded levy scheme under the Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and rules framed thereunder. The issue involved in the appeal is whether the length of galleries was liable to be included in the parameters of Hot air Stenter for the purpose of determination of the annual capacity of production of the appellants. The Commissioner of Central Excise had included the length of galleries also and, accordingly, raised a higher demand of duty. The above issue stands decided by the Larger Bench in Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that galleries were not to be taken into account for computing annual capacity of production. The issue involved in this appeal thus stands covered in favour of the assessee by the Larger Bench decision and, accordingly, this appeal is allowed.