ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member (Technical)
1. On hearing arguments on the stay application, we find that the issue stands settled and take up the appeals for final disposal on granting the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty confirmed and penalty imposed on the applicants.
2. The appellant was operating under the HASITPAPCD Rules, 1998. In computing the number of chambers for determination of duty, the length of the galleries was also included. Before the Commissioner, an order of the Tribunal was cited wherein the propose of galleries was discussed and it was held that the rail length would not form part of chambers. In the face of this judgement the adjudicating Commissioner once again went into the case law given by other forums without any relevance to the facts before him. He also took note of the amending notification and rule that prior to the date of amendment specifically excluding the galleries, galleries would stand included in the calculation.
3. A number of judgements have been issued on the is dispute culminating in the bench judgement of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd vs. CCE 2001 ELT 679. The sum total of the judgements is that ab initio the length of the galleries would not be included in the computation of chambers. In the face of this clear law, the Commissioner has unnecessarily complicated the issue by baseless reasoning. The adjudicating Commissioners should refrain from such tactics merely to enhance their revenue.
4. The Commissioner’s order does not sustain and is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.