Vinayak Dyeing Works Vs. Cce

1. these two appeals are filed by the same appellant and the issue is the same. we have heard shri k.v. sahasrabudhe for the appellants and shri a.k. jain for the revenue. today, before us, two applications were posted. one was for early hearing of the matter on the ground that the issues stood settled by a judgment of the larger bench and also that there was an unwarranted liability of rs. 18 lakhs on the appellant who falls in small sector. the second application seeks stay of pre-deposit of the differential duty confirmed of rs. 7,18,569/-. granting the prayer for early hearing, we waive the pre-deposit of the duty and the penalty of same amount and prodeed to decide the appeals.2. vide his order dt. 14.7.1999, the commissioner of central excise, mumbai iii re-determined the burden of duty on the appellants by adding to the number of chambers, a value of 0.33 by including the rail length of galleries in the length of chambers. pursuant to this order the dy.commissioner vide his order dt. 28.7.2000 confirmed the resultant demand which was upheld by the commissioner (appeals). hence these two appeals.sangam processors bhilwara ltd. v. cce, jaipur] held that the length of the galleries was not to be included for determining the number of chambers on which was based the liability to pay duty under the procedure. following the law so laid down, we hold that the commissioner had erred in adding length of the galleries to the number of chambers for such determination. this order does not sustain and for this reason the orders pursuant thereto confirming differential duty also do not sustain.