M/S. Jay Kay Synthetics Vs. Cce, Chandigarh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the matter was called. none appeared for the appellants, m/s. jay kay synthetics, kashmir road, amritsar. under their communication dated 8.2.2001, the appellants have prayed for decision on merits and relied upon the tribunal's larger bench decision in the case of sangam processors bhilwara ltd. vs. cce, jaipur - 2001 (42) rlt 429 (cegat - larger bench).2. we have heard shri m.m. dubey, jdr, who submits that the only issue for consideration in this appeal is the inclusion or exclusion of galleries while determining the production capacity of the hot air stenter under the hot air stenter independent textile processor annual capacity determination rules, 1998. he fairly submits that the tribunal's larger bench decision is in favour of the appellants and that the tribunal has taken a view that for determination of the annual capacity under the above mentioned rules, the galleries was not to be taken into account.3. as the matter is already covered by the aforesaid larger bench decision of the tribunal, we allow the appeal.4. the department is at liberty to re-determine the capacity in accordance with law after following the aforesaid tribunal's decision.

Judgment:
1. The matter was called. None appeared for the appellants, M/s. Jay Kay Synthetics, Kashmir Road, Amritsar. Under their communication dated 8.2.2001, the appellants have prayed for decision on merits and relied upon the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur - 2001 (42) RLT 429 (CEGAT - Larger Bench).

2. We have heard Shri M.M. Dubey, JDR, who submits that the only issue for consideration in this appeal is the inclusion or exclusion of galleries while determining the production capacity of the Hot Air Stenter under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processor Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. He fairly submits that the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision is in favour of the appellants and that the Tribunal has taken a view that for determination of the Annual Capacity under the above mentioned Rules, the galleries was not to be taken into account.

3. As the matter is already covered by the aforesaid Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal, we allow the appeal.

4. The Department is at liberty to re-determine the capacity in accordance with law after following the aforesaid Tribunal's decision.