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.

Mahesh Textile Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Mahesh Textile Processors vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 15, 2001
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/20944

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 Mumbai
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mahesh Textile Processors

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Excerpt

1. in the impugned order, the commissioner has confirmed the demand for duty issued to the appellant, a processor of textile fabrics on the ground that in determining the capacity of the stender under the hot air stender independent textile processors annual capacity determination rules, 1998, the length of the galleries is to be taken into account.2. the question as to whether the length of such galleries should form part of the capacity of the chambers in the hot air stender was referred to the larger bench of the tribunal as a result of conflicting decisions on this issue. the larger bench in its decision in sangam processors bilwara ltd vs. cce 2001 (42) rlt 429 has held that such galleries are not equipment for aiding the process of heat setting or drying of fabric referred to in the explanation 1 below rule 3 of the rules. it has confirmed the view of the tribunal in rm gupta textile p.ltd vs. cce 2000 (40) rlt 234 that such galleries are not to be taken into account while calculating the capacity of the stender.3. accordingly we take up the appeal itself, after waiving deposit, allow it and set aside the impugned order.

Full Judgment

1. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand for duty issued to the appellant, a processor of textile fabrics on the ground that in determining the capacity of the stender under the Hot Air Stender Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998, the length of the galleries is to be taken into account.

2. The question as to whether the length of such galleries should form part of the capacity of the chambers in the hot air stender was referred to the larger bench of the Tribunal as a result of conflicting decisions on this issue. The larger bench in its decision in Sangam Processors Bilwara Ltd vs. CCE 2001 (42) RLT 429 has held that such galleries are not equipment for aiding the process of heat setting or drying of fabric referred to in the Explanation 1 below rule 3 of the Rules. It has confirmed the view of the Tribunal in RM Gupta Textile P.Ltd vs. CCE 2000 (40) RLT 234 that such galleries are not to be taken into account while calculating the capacity of the stender.

3. Accordingly we take up the appeal itself, after waiving deposit, allow it and set aside the impugned order.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial