Marda Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Marda 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/24926

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/24926
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

Marda Processors

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(147)ELT1256Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the appeal taken up with the consent of the departmental representative after waiving deposit. the appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice.2. the question for consideration in this appeal is liability for conclusion in calculating the capacity of the chambers and stenter in the appellant's factory, the galleries which were part of the stenter.while the commissioner held the rail length of the gallery to be includible relying upon the decision of the tribunal in cm paints (p) ltd vs 2000 (120) elt 829, the law laid down by the tribunal is no longer good law having been overruled by the larger bench in its decision in sangam processor bhilwara ltd vs cce 2001 (127) elt 679.the rail length of the gallery is therefore was not to be included.

Full Judgment

1. The appeal taken up with the consent of the departmental representative after waiving deposit. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice.

2. The question for consideration in this appeal is liability for conclusion in calculating the capacity of the chambers and stenter in the appellant's factory, the galleries which were part of the stenter.

While the Commissioner held the rail length of the gallery to be includible relying upon the decision of the tribunal in CM Paints (P) Ltd vs 2000 (120) ELT 829, the law laid down by the Tribunal is no longer good law having been overruled by the larger bench in its decision in Sangam Processor Bhilwara Ltd vs CCE 2001 (127) ELT 679.

The rail length of the gallery is therefore was not to be included.

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