M/S. H.M. Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
2. the contention of the appellant is that the annual capacity of production under the hot air stenter independent textile processors annual capacity determiniation rules, 1988 were determined without affording an opportunity of personal hearing and the commissioner while determining the annual capacity also taken into account the galleries of their hot air stenter. the appellants are relying upon the larger bench decision in the case of m/s.sangam processors bhilwara ltd. vs.cce, jaipur, final order no.16/2001/nb(db) dated 4.1.2001 whereby the tribunal held that a gallery which is having no rails, fan or radiator attached to it cannot come within the purview of "any other equipment"as contemplated by explanation i to the rule.3. as the impugned order is passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant hence it is passed in violation to the principles of natural justice. the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the commissioner of central excise for deciding afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and after taking into consideration the above mentioned decision of the larger bench. the appeal is disposed of way of remand.

Judgment:
2. The contention of the appellant is that the Annual capacity of production under the Hot Air Stenter Independent textile Processors Annual capacity Determiniation Rules, 1988 were determined without affording an opportunity of personal hearing and the Commissioner while determining the Annual Capacity also taken into account the galleries of their Hot Air Stenter. The appellants are relying upon the Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s.Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. Vs.

CCE, Jaipur, Final Order No.16/2001/NB(DB) dated 4.1.2001 whereby the Tribunal held that a gallery which is having no rails, fan or radiator attached to it cannot come within the purview of "any other equipment"as contemplated by Explanation I to the Rule.

3. As the impugned order is passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant hence it is passed in violation to the principles of natural justice. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner of Central Excise for deciding afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and after taking into consideration the above mentioned decision of the Larger Bench. The appeal is disposed of way of remand.