Radha Mohan Processors, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Radha Mohan Processors, vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 31, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25337

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/25337
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Aug 31, 2001
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

Radha Mohan Processors,

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Excerpt

1. appeals taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waving deposit.2. each of the appellants is a textile processor, and duty had been demanded from them and penalty on them, on the ground that they did not pay the duty determined in terms of hot air stentor independent textile processors annual capacity determination rules, 1998.3. each of the appellants contended before the commissioner that in determining the capacity of the stentor, the rail length of the gallery which was part of the stentor has to be excluded. the commissioner has held that these galleries cannot be excluded prior to 1.3.2000, on which date the rules were amended to explicitly provided for their exclusion. he had following the decision of the tribunal in c.m. paints (pvt) ltd v. cce 2000 (12) elt 829, held that during the period prior to this date rail length of the gallery has to be included. that decision is no longer good law, having been overruled by the larger bench in its decision in sangam processors bhilwara ltd v. cce 2000 (126) elt 679. applying the ratio of this decision, the rail length of the gallery will not be taken into account in determining the capacity of the stentor.4. the appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned orders set aside.

Full Judgment

1. Appeals taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waving deposit.

2. Each of the appellants is a textile processor, and duty had been demanded from them and penalty on them, on the ground that they did not pay the duty determined in terms of Hot Air Stentor Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998.

3. Each of the appellants contended before the Commissioner that in determining the capacity of the stentor, the rail length of the gallery which was part of the stentor has to be excluded. The Commissioner has held that these galleries cannot be excluded prior to 1.3.2000, on which date the rules were amended to explicitly provided for their exclusion. He had following the decision of the Tribunal in C.M. Paints (Pvt) Ltd v. CCE 2000 (12) Elt 829, held that during the period prior to this date rail length of the gallery has to be included. That decision is no longer good law, having been overruled by the larger bench in its decision in Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd v. CCE 2000 (126) ELT 679. Applying the ratio of this decision, the rail length of the gallery will not be taken into account in determining the capacity of the stentor.

4. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned orders set aside.

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