Cce Vs. Standard Processors

Cce vs Standard Processors

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 25, 2002

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/27681

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/27681
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S T G.R., P Bajaj
Decided On: Feb 25, 2002
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

Standard Processors

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(82)ECC318

Excerpt

.....not to be included while determining the capacity of chambers clearly shows that earlier the intention of the govt. was to include the length of galleries. ld. dr reiterated the findings of the asstt. commissioner in the order-in-original.2. brief facts of the case leading the present proceedings are that the respondents are independent textile processors paying duty under section 3a of the central excise act, 1944 read with the relevant rule.they filed declaration indicating the number of stenters. their production capacity was determined provisionally. on physical verification, it was found that there were galleries in the stenter attached to it. scns were issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why the length of galleries should not be added to the length of the chambers to determine the annual capacity of production of the hot air stenter. the asstt. commissioner adjudicating the case held that the galleries attached to the chamber of the stenter shall be added. the appellants filed appeals against this order before the commissioner (appeals). the commissioner (appeals) following the ratio of the decision of the tribunal in the case of sangam processors cited above held that the length of the galleries shall not be added to the length of the stenter chambers for determining the annual production capacity of the stenter. being aggrieved by this order, revenue has filed the captioned appeals.3. arguing the case for the appellants shri atul saxena, ld. dr reiterates the submissions in the appeal memo stating that the department has not accepted the decision of the larger bench of this tribunal in the case of sangam processors. they have filed an appeal before the apex court which has been admitted.5. we have heard the submissions of the ld. dr. we have also perused the evidence on record and the case law cited and relied upon by the ld. commissioner (appeals) while deciding the issue in appeal. we note that the issue is entirely covered by the.....

Full Judgment

1. Revenue has filed these four appeals alongwith four stay petitions.

In the stay petitions, there is a request for staying the operation of the impugned order. It has been submitted in the stay petition that the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors 2001 (42) RLT 429 has not been accepted by the Department and appeal filed there against has been admitted by the Apex Court, Ld. DR submits that according to Explanation I to the new Rules notified under Notification No. 14/2000 dt. 1.3.2000, length of galleries is not to be included while determining the capacity of chambers clearly shows that earlier the intention of the Govt. was to include the length of galleries. Ld. DR reiterated the findings of the Asstt. Commissioner in the Order-in-Original.

2. Brief facts of the case leading the present proceedings are that the respondents are independent Textile Processors paying duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the relevant rule.

They filed declaration indicating the number of stenters. Their production capacity was determined provisionally. On physical verification, it was found that there were galleries in the stenter attached to it. SCNs were issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why the length of galleries should not be added to the length of the chambers to determine the Annual Capacity of Production of the Hot Air Stenter. The Asstt. Commissioner adjudicating the case held that the galleries attached to the chamber of the stenter shall be added. The appellants filed appeals against this order before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) following the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors cited above held that the length of the galleries shall not be added to the length of the stenter chambers for determining the Annual Production Capacity of the stenter. Being aggrieved by this order, Revenue has filed the captioned appeals.

3. Arguing the case for the appellants Shri Atul Saxena, LD. DR reiterates the submissions in the Appeal Memo stating that the Department has not accepted the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors. They have filed an appeal before the Apex Court which has been admitted.

5. We have heard the submissions of the Ld. DR. We have also perused the evidence on record and the case law cited and relied upon by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the issue in appeal. We note that the issue is entirely covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal. We do not see any reason to disagree with that decision. Following the ratio of that decision, we reject the four stay petitions as also the four appeals filed by Revenue.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cce vs Standard Processors Same Subject Excise Same Judge S T G.R., P Bajaj