ORDER
K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)
1. The appellants are the independent processors of textiles. They filed an application dated 15-12-1998 with reference to the Notification No. 42/98-C.E. (N.T.) dated 10-12-1998 for the purpose of fixation of annual capacity under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II vide his Order-in-Original dated 3/4-2-2000 fixed the annual capacity of production of the appellants at Rs. 753.84 lakhs. In order to arrive at this annual capacity of production, the Commissioner has taken into account the galleries at each end of each of the five chambers of the Hot Air Stenter used by the appellants in the process of heat setting and drying of the fabrics. In this context, the Commissioner in his order has relied on the Trade Notice No. 22/99 dated 12-3-1999 issued by the Commissionerate on the strength of the Board’s instructions F. No. 341/4/99-TRU dated 27-2-1999.
2. This appeal is against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner. The matter is listed today for the purpose of stay. I have heard Shri Y.K. Kumar, Advocate for the appellants and Shri S.P. Rao, JDR for the Respondents. The ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that galleries of the stenter do not participate in the heat setting and drying of the fabrics. He contended that the galleries could not be termed as “equipment” and as such these could not be covered under Explanation I to Capacity Determination Rules (supra). He stated that the function of the galleries is the same in respect of all the stenters irrespective of their make. Shri S.P. Rao, JDR has relied on the findings of the Commissioner in his order and referred to the CEGAT Final Order Nos. A/541-43/2000-NB(DB), dated 28-6-2000 [2000 (120) E.L.T. 829 (Tribunal)] in support of his case.
3. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. The Final Order Nos. A/541-43/2000-NB(DB) dated 28-6-2000 [2000 (120) E.L.T. 829 (Tribunal)] of the Tribunal in the case of CM. Prints (P) Ltd. & Others v. C.C.E., Delhi is cited before me by the Revenue side in which it is held that the argument that the ‘gallery’ is not ‘equipment’ or ‘machine’ and therefore, it will not come within the scope of Explanation I cannot be accepted since the context in which the expression ‘equipment’ is used in the Explanation I is not with the purpose of restricting its ambit. In context the expression has been used in its general sense so as to include a facility. We, therefore, are satisfied that ‘gallery’ attached to the stenter facilitating prevention of heat loss will come to within the expression of ‘equipment’ aiding process of heat setting under Explanation I. In view of these findings of the Tribunal in a similar case, the balance of convenience is in favour of the Revenue. There is no financial hardship pleaded by the applicants. I, therefore, direct them to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 5,67,168/- the waiver of stay of which is sought in their petition – within eight weeks from today. The matter to come up for reporting compliance on 21-9-2000.