2000 (8) TMI 560 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of whether galleries installed/attached to the stenter should be treated as equipment aiding the heat setting or drying process.
2. Determination of duty payable based on the inclusion of galleries as part of the stenter machine.

Analysis:
1. The issue before the Commissioner revolved around whether the galleries attached to the stenter should be considered as equipment aiding the heat setting or drying process of the fabric. The Commissioner concluded that the galleries should be included as part of the stenter machine, leading to a redetermination of the annual capacity and duty payable by the appellants. The duty amount of Rs. 1,99,268/- was confirmed as the differential duty for specific periods, and immediate payment was ordered.

2. The Tribunal, in a previous case involving a similar issue, held that the galleries attached to the stenter should not be considered as equipment aiding the heat setting or drying process of the fabric. This decision was based on the distinct structure and function of the galleries compared to the hot air chamber of the stenter. The Tribunal emphasized that the galleries should not be included in the dimension of the hot air chamber, as clarified by a notification with retrospective effect. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal based on the settled law that galleries are not part of the hot air chamber.

3. The Tribunal further reiterated that the law is now clear that galleries should be excluded from the dimensions of the stenter's hot air chamber. The Tribunal emphasized the retrospective application of the explanation provided by the government through a notification. Based on the established legal principles, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and providing consequential relief as per law.

4. Following the established legal precedents and settled law, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. The decision was based on the understanding that galleries attached to the stenter should not be included in the dimension of the hot air chamber, as clarified by previous judgments and notifications. The appeal was allowed in line with the clear interpretation of the law regarding the treatment of galleries in relation to the stenter machine.