Primier Textiles Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Primier Textiles Processors vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 09, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/24919

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/24919
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Aug 09, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Primier Textiles Processors

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Excerpt

1. on hearing both sides, the main appeal was taken up for disposal after granting waiver of pre-deposit as prayed for.2. the appellants are operating under the hot air stenter independent processors annual capacity determination rules 1998. the decision of addition of galleries to the chambers was upheld by the commissioner (appeals) relying upon the tribunal judgment in the case of c.m. paints (p) ltd. vs. cce, new delhi[2000(120) elt 829.] we find that this decision has been specifically over-ruled by the larger bench of the tribunal in their judgment in the case of sangam processors bhilwara ltd. vs. cce jaipur [2001(127) el.t. 679]. the impugned order therefore, does not sustain. the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.

Full Judgment

1. On hearing both sides, the main appeal was taken up for disposal after granting waiver of pre-deposit as prayed for.

2. The appellants are operating under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules 1998. The decision of addition of galleries to the chambers was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of C.M. Paints (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, New Delhi[2000(120) ELT 829.] We find that this decision has been specifically over-ruled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in their judgment in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur [2001(127) EL.T. 679]. The impugned order therefore, does not sustain. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Primier Textiles Processors vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Same Subject Excise