Shree Ram Textile and Processing (i) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Shree Ram Textile and Processing (i) vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 11, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25575

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/25575
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Sep 11, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shree Ram Textile and Processing (i)

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Excerpt

2. the question for consideration in this appeal is the liability of the rail length of the galleries which formed part of the stenter in the appellant's factory to be taken into account while deciding its capacity in accordance with rule 3 of the hot air stenter independent textile processors annual capacity determination rules, 1998.sangam processors bhilwara ltd. vs. cce, jaipur 2001 (42) rlt 429 has concluded that this rail length is not to be included in the capacity. the determination of the capacity made by the commissioner by including this rail length therefore cannot be sustained.4. the appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside. the commissioner shall now determine the capacity without including the rail length of the galleries.

Full Judgment

2. The question for consideration in this appeal is the liability of the rail length of the galleries which formed part of the stenter in the appellant's factory to be taken into account while deciding its capacity in accordance with rule 3 of the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998.Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur 2001 (42) RLT 429 has concluded that this rail length is not to be included in the capacity. The determination of the capacity made by the Commissioner by including this rail length therefore cannot be sustained.

4. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside. The Commissioner shall now determine the capacity without including the rail length of the galleries.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Shree Ram Textile and Processing (i) vs Commissioner of Centr... Same Subject Excise