9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2001 (1) TMI 110 - AT - Central Excise
Issues Involved: Determination of excise duty liability based on production capacity u/s Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998; Inclusion of galleries in the dimensions of hot air chamber for production capacity calculation; Interpretation of Explanation I to Rule 3 regarding installation or attachment of equipment aiding heat setting or drying of fabrics.
Summary: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal arose from conflicting decisions regarding the inclusion of galleries in the production capacity determination for processors of man-made fabrics using Hot Air Stenter. The appellants contested the Commissioner's method of including galleries in the dimensions of chambers, arguing that galleries serve a non-productive purpose of preventing pollution from chemical fumes emitted by chambers. The Tribunal analyzed the Rules framed u/s 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which determine the annual production capacity of textile processors using Hot Air Stenter. Rule 3 specified criteria for calculating production capacity based on the number and size of chambers in the stenter. Explanation I clarified that equipment aiding heat setting or drying, like a float drying machine, should be considered as chambers. The key question was whether galleries could be deemed as aiding the process under this Explanation. The Department contended that galleries aid in heat setting or drying by expelling hot air from chambers. However, the Tribunal disagreed, noting that the recirculation process within chambers contradicted this argument. The Commissioner's view that galleries insulated heat and aided the process was also rejected as galleries lacked essential equipment for aiding heat setting or drying. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, ruling in favor of the appellants. It was held that galleries without necessary equipment cannot be considered as aiding the heat setting process, contrary to the Department's interpretation. The Tribunal aligned with the decision in R.M. Gupta Textiles case, emphasizing the correct interpretation of Explanation I to Rule 3. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was overturned, providing consequential relief to the appellants.
|
