Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

M/S. H.M. Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

M/S. H.M. Processors vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 25, 2001
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/20599

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M/S. H.M. Processors

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Excerpt

2. the contention of the appellant is that the annual capacity of production under the hot air stenter independent textile processors annual capacity determiniation rules, 1988 were determined without affording an opportunity of personal hearing and the commissioner while determining the annual capacity also taken into account the galleries of their hot air stenter. the appellants are relying upon the larger bench decision in the case of m/s.sangam processors bhilwara ltd. vs.cce, jaipur, final order no.16/2001/nb(db) dated 4.1.2001 whereby the tribunal held that a gallery which is having no rails, fan or radiator attached to it cannot come within the purview of "any other equipment"as contemplated by explanation i to the rule.3. as the impugned order is passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant hence it is passed in violation to the principles of natural justice. the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the commissioner of central excise for deciding afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and after taking into consideration the above mentioned decision of the larger bench. the appeal is disposed of way of remand.

Full Judgment

2. The contention of the appellant is that the Annual capacity of production under the Hot Air Stenter Independent textile Processors Annual capacity Determiniation Rules, 1988 were determined without affording an opportunity of personal hearing and the Commissioner while determining the Annual Capacity also taken into account the galleries of their Hot Air Stenter. The appellants are relying upon the Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s.Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. Vs.

CCE, Jaipur, Final Order No.16/2001/NB(DB) dated 4.1.2001 whereby the Tribunal held that a gallery which is having no rails, fan or radiator attached to it cannot come within the purview of "any other equipment"as contemplated by Explanation I to the Rule.

3. As the impugned order is passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant hence it is passed in violation to the principles of natural justice. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner of Central Excise for deciding afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and after taking into consideration the above mentioned decision of the Larger Bench. The appeal is disposed of way of remand.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial