Dispute over galleries in stenters' measurements resolved in favor of appellant.

The case involved a dispute over the inclusion of galleries in stenters' measurements. The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, rejecting the Revenue's argument. Regarding the suo moto abatement, the tribunal found in favor of the appellant, deeming the abatement regularized and setting aside interest and penalty but requiring payment of the duty amount and associated interest. The impugned order was modified accordingly. The judgment was delivered on 26/07/2016 by Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Inclusion of galleries in measurements of stenters.
2. Suo moto abatement taken by the appellant.

Analysis:
1. Inclusion of galleries in measurements of stenters:
The case involved a dispute regarding whether galleries should be included in the measurements of stenters. The Revenue contended for their inclusion, but both the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT upheld the order in favor of the appellant, ruling against the Revenue's argument. This issue was resolved in favor of the appellant.

2. Suo moto abatement taken by the appellant:
The second issue revolved around the suo moto abatement taken by the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide any findings on this matter, leading the CESTAT to hold that the Order-in-Appeal was not sustainable specifically concerning the issue of suo moto abatement. The case was remanded for further consideration on this point. In the subsequent decision, the Commissioner imposed interest and penalty on the appellant. The appellant argued that the abatement should be considered deemed to have been granted when they took it suo moto, citing legal precedents to support their stance. On the contrary, the respondent argued that the abatement was only valid from the date the Commissioner allowed it, and relied on various judgments to support their position. Ultimately, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the abatement taken by the appellant was knowingly allowed by the Commissioner and therefore deemed regularized. Consequently, the interest and penalty were set aside, but the duty amount paid short by the appellant was deemed correctly payable, along with the associated interest and penalty.

In conclusion, the tribunal partially allowed the appeal, modifying the impugned order to reflect the findings on the issues discussed. The judgment was pronounced on 26/07/2016 by Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai.

---