2006 (3) TMI 577

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellant. Shri U.H. Jadhav, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duties and penalties, we proceed to decide the appeal itself. 2. As per facts on record the appellant is Independent Textile Processors Based upon their declaration, Commissioner of Central Excise vide his order No. 1/98, date....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Central Excise, who dropped the same by relying upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. [2002 (146) E.L.T. 254 (S.C.)] laying down that length of the gallery is not to be considered while arriving at the number of chambers. 3. Being aggrieved with the said order, Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the main ground that i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, the present appeal. 4. After hearing both the sides we find that the main grievance of the appellant is that the Final Order No. 32/99, dated 14-7-99 passed by the Commissioner was not an adjudication order passed in appealable form. The same was merely in the form of a letter intimating the appellant about the final fixation of annual capacity of production. As such, they could not hav....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... It is seen that they were not even heard before determining the annual capacity of production. Even when the appellant subsequently filed a representation there against, they were neither advised by the office of the Commissioner to file an appeal against the said order nor the said representation was decided by them. We are informed that the same is pending till date. As such, we are of the view....