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

M/S Navjeevan Processors vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 21, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/23212

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/23212
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: May 21, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M/S Navjeevan Processors

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Excerpt

1. after hearing shri p.r. kulkarni, we find that the issue is covered and therefore take up the appeal for final disposal on granting waiver of predeposit of duty of rs.1,17,150/- and penalty of equal amount.2. the appellant was operating under the hot air stenter independent textile processors annual capacity determination (hasitpaced) rules, 1998. in determining the number of chambers the length of the galleries had been added. before the commissioner an order of the (cegat)was cited in the case of c.m. paints (p) ltd. vs. cce[2000(120)elt 829 (t)] in which the cegat had held that regarding the purpose served by the galleries the rail length of galleries could not be taken into account while determining the number of chambers. in the face of this direct order also the ld. commissioner attempted to distinguish the said judgment. he went into the interpretation of the explanation to notification no. 42/98. he also referred to some other case law which advice that the meaning of the words had to be taken into account for interpretation of the notification and not the intendment. having done this he proceeded to hold against the assesses.3. we find that the view held by the tribunal in the cited judgment, was held by all the benches of the tribunal and was affirmed by the large bench in sangam processors bhilwara ltd. vs. commissioner of central excise, jaipur [2000 (127) elt 679 (tri.-lb)]. in the face of this body of case of law the orders of the commissioner do not service and are required to beset aside. we mention here that the commissioners at all times must overcome the temptation to add to the revenues by misinterpretating the judgment of the tribunal or by attempting to place a different interpretation thereupon. the appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.

Full Judgment

1. After hearing Shri P.R. Kulkarni, we find that the issue is covered and therefore take up the appeal for final disposal on granting waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.1,17,150/- and penalty of equal amount.

2. The appellant was operating under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination (HASITPACED) Rules, 1998. In determining the number of chambers the length of the galleries had been added. Before the Commissioner an order of the (CEGAT)was cited in the case of C.M. Paints (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE[2000(120)ELT 829 (T)] in which the CEGAT had held that regarding the purpose served by the galleries the rail length of galleries could not be taken into account while determining the number of chambers. In the face of this direct order also the Ld. Commissioner attempted to distinguish the said judgment. He went into the interpretation of the explanation to notification No. 42/98. He also referred to some other case law which advice that the meaning of the words had to be taken into account for interpretation of the notification and not the intendment. Having done this he proceeded to hold against the assesses.

3. We find that the view held by the Tribunal in the cited judgment, was held by all the Benches of the Tribunal and was affirmed by the Large Bench in Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2000 (127) ELT 679 (Tri.-LB)]. In the face of this body of case of law the orders of the Commissioner do not service and are required to beset aside. We mention here that the Commissioners at all times must overcome the temptation to add to the Revenues by misinterpretating the judgment of the Tribunal or by attempting to place a different interpretation thereupon. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties M/S Navjeevan Processors vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Same Subject Excise