2011 (10) TMI 420 - AT - Central Excise

Compounded Levy Scheme - Annual Capacity - Held -Cooling zone is neither installed in nor attached to the stenter. Further it is not aiding the process of heat setting or drying of the fabrics but merely cools the fabrics which comes out of the stenter. In view of the above factual position the inclusion of the cooling zone in the number of chambers used for processing is incorrect in law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty based on the consideration of a cooling zone of Hot Air Stenter Chambers for Determination of Annual Capacity under the Compounded Levy Scheme.

Analysis:
The applicant filed an application seeking a waiver of pre-deposit of duty, which was confirmed taking into account a cooling zone of Hot Air Stenter Chambers for determining the annual capacity under the Compounded Levy Scheme. The authorized representative of the appellant referred to a previous Tribunal order where it was held that the cooling zone of the stenter should not be considered while computing the duty under the scheme. The Tribunal found that the demand, confirmed on the same ground, was set aside in the applicant's own case. The Tribunal observed that the cooling zone, which was not aiding the process of heat setting or drying of fabrics but merely cooling them, should not be included in the computation of chambers used for processing. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed after waiving the pre-deposit of duty based on the earlier order.

This judgment highlights the importance of correctly interpreting the rules governing the determination of annual capacity under the Compounded Levy Scheme. It emphasizes that equipment must be installed in or attached to the stenter and aid in the process of heat setting or drying of fabrics to be considered a chamber. The decision clarifies that the cooling zone, which does not meet these criteria and only cools fabrics, should not be counted as a chamber for the purpose of duty computation. The Tribunal's analysis underscores the significance of adhering to the legal provisions and factual considerations in determining the liability under the scheme, ensuring fair treatment for the appellant based on the specific circumstances of the case.

Overall, the judgment provides a detailed examination of the legal provisions, specifically the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998, to arrive at a reasoned decision regarding the inclusion of the cooling zone in the computation of chambers. By considering the arguments presented by both parties and the relevant legal framework, the Tribunal concluded that the cooling zone should be excluded from the calculation, aligning with the appellant's contention and the provisions of the notification. This comprehensive analysis demonstrates the Tribunal's commitment to upholding the integrity of the legal framework while ensuring a fair and just outcome for the appellant in this case.