GAGAN SYNTHETICS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the issue involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s. Gagan Synthetics, has been settled by the Supreme Court, we stay the recovery of the entire duty and penalty and take up the Appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides.

(2.) WE heard Shri Jitender Singh, learned Advocate and Shri Jagdish Singh, learned Departmental Representative. The issue involved in this Appeal is whether the length of the galleries is to be included in the length of Chamber while determining the annual capacity of production of an independent textile processor. The Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur -II v. S.P.B.L. Ltd. - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 254 (S.C.) has affirmed the decisions of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, 2001 (127) E.L.T. 679 (Tri. - LB) = 2001 (42) RLT 429 (Cegat - LB). The Tribunal has 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 1 to Rule 3 of the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the Appeal filed by the Appellants on the ground that the period under dispute is upto March, 1999 and the revised Rules were formulated in 2000 which cannot be applied for the past period. The Supreme Court has observed in S.P.B.L. case that there is not much difference between Rules, 1998 and Rules 2000 and "it cannot be held that the Tribunal committed any error in relying upon the doctrine of contemporanea exposito to remove ambiguity in understanding the language of the 1998 Rules." The Appeal is thus allowed.